But How Can This Be? The Economy Sucks for Everyone!

PittsburghAfterDark

PittsburghAfterDark

CAGiversary!
Holiday retail spending up 8.7 Percent

NEW YORK (Reuters) - U.S. consumers spent 8.7 percent more during the just ended holiday shopping period than in the comparable period a year ago, according to a report from an affiliate of MasterCard Inc., the Wall Street Journal reported in its online edition on Monday.

The study, by SpendingPulse, covered the period from the Friday after the U.S. Thanksgiving holiday through December 24, Christmas Eve. That period included 30 days in 2005, compared with 29 days in 2004.

The report found the biggest increases in spending on home furnishings, up 15.2 percent, followed by consumer electronics and appliances, up 10.5 percent. Spending on jewelry was down 4.6 percent.

The report covers spending in stores and on the Internet, and includes food sales. It excludes spending on autos and gasoline.
Link
 
[quote name='steveinneed']It went up 8.7% last year also. Seems kinda fishy to me.[/QUOTE]

It's a conspiracy, man! :roll:

Whoever thinks the economy is in the shitter hasn't been paying attention for quite a while.
 
It's not fishy at all. Considering that, in 2004 dollars, the median income in the US in 1990 was around $42,000 per year, and that it is currently $44,389, it's not as if you can reasonably argue that people have more money to spend (particularly when the median income is down almost $2,000 from its peak of over $46,500 in the late 1990s). With that in mind, I cannot deny that people are spending more. (Data from http://www.census.gov/prod/2005pubs/p60-229.pdf)

How is the magic done, do you ask? Simple. The use of credit cards, as a proportion of overall spending, is increasing dramatically. We don't have more money to spend from year to year, on average, but each year holiday spending increases. There is a reason, and there are existing trends, that caused Congress to revamp our bankruptcy policies last year; unfortunately, none of the changes address anything but ensuring that coorporations are protected from individuals, but the opposite does not hold.

So, the question, "But How Can This Be?" is easily answered by pointing out that individuals and households are becoming more and more ensnared in debt. It's not that difficult, really.
 
[quote name='steveinneed']Its not really because bush done anything for the economy. It's part of the economic cycle.[/QUOTE]

Agree. The president has relatively little control over the economy. Hell, the government doesn't have that much control. The only way they can make a big change in trends is to make major changes to the tax code or subsidies or something similar.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']

How is the magic done, do you ask? Simple. The use of credit cards, as a proportion of overall spending, is increasing dramatically. We don't have more money to spend from year to year, on average, but each year holiday spending increases. There is a reason, and there are existing trends, that caused Congress to revamp our bankruptcy policies last year; unfortunately, none of the changes address anything but ensuring that coorporations are protected from individuals, but the opposite does not hold.

So, the question, "But How Can This Be?" is easily answered by pointing out that individuals and households are becoming more and more ensnared in debt. It's not that difficult, really.[/QUOTE]

Agreed. People are spending more money that they really don't have. Also, notice the information about the spending increases is from a major credit card company. Of course they want to say spending is up.

I do agree our economy is going into the shitter though, and most people are trying to cover up the fact by buying more stuff on credit.
 
You have really no idea who is actually spending the money though. This 8.7 percent could be mostly from the top 10%. Hell the spending at the Gates household could be half the increase.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']It's not fishy at all. Considering that, in 2004 dollars, the median income in the US in 1990 was around $42,000 per year, and that it is currently $44,389, it's not as if you can reasonably argue that people have more money to spend (particularly when the median income is down almost $2,000 from its peak of over $46,500 in the late 1990s). With that in mind, I cannot deny that people are spending more. (Data from http://www.census.gov/prod/2005pubs/p60-229.pdf)

How is the magic done, do you ask? Simple. The use of credit cards, as a proportion of overall spending, is increasing dramatically. We don't have more money to spend from year to year, on average, but each year holiday spending increases. There is a reason, and there are existing trends, that caused Congress to revamp our bankruptcy policies last year; unfortunately, none of the changes address anything but ensuring that coorporations are protected from individuals, but the opposite does not hold.

So, the question, "But How Can This Be?" is easily answered by pointing out that individuals and households are becoming more and more ensnared in debt. It's not that difficult, really.[/QUOTE]

BINGO! So it's gonna come and bite us in the ass when there are tons of people unable to pay off their debt.
 
I love how all of you have to downplay this as people going in debt that's never going to be paid and just can't admit that tens of millions of working families actually have money to spend and disposable income.

I'd love to crawl around in your collective minds just once to know what it's like to go through life thinking everything sucks, the economy sucks, the government sucks, corporatations suck, the military sucks, executives suck etc. What is it like to go through life with no sense of optimism and waking up miserable daily?
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']I'd love to crawl around in your collective minds just once to know what it's like to go through life thinking everything sucks, the economy sucks, the government sucks, corporatations suck, the military sucks, executives suck etc. What is it like to go through life with no sense of optimism and waking up miserable daily?[/QUOTE]

Welcome to the life of diehard partisan Democrats, circa 2005! ;)
 
*sigh* PAD, I pointed out that the median income has not increased in 15 years; it went up roughly $4,000, and is currently $2,000 less than that peak. Knowing that, how can you explain continual annual growths in consumer spending *every year* when they don't have that much more to spend?

Given the arguments I put forth, I would expect a concession at best, an inquiry for clarification or perhaps a critique at worst. Instead, of course, I get another bland ad hominem from a middle-aged man who can't come to grips with the fact that, knowing incomes are not increasing, he can't explain away consumer spending as people actually having money in their hands.
 
PAD is the master at answering arguments no one made.

You support a lying scumbag PAD, he practically owns you.

Explain that one.
 
[quote name='evanft']mykevermin, you can't use simple MATH against PAD. What were you thinking?[/QUOTE]
Because, as we all know, math is an invention of the liberal media.
 
Mykey income is not the only thing that can have an effect on holiday spending.

Take for example the fact that for 6 months this year every domestic car maker offered a combination of 1.9% interest on top of employee pricing. Every car sold for 6 months that was domestic may have saved buyers $150+ a month. There's also been a seismic shift in how people are financing their homes resulting in significantly lower mortgage payments. Last but not least the stock market has had a very good year as has the housing market. Those both are heavy contributors to how much money people have at their disposal from capital gains or dividend payments.

Right there are four widespread financial factors that put money in household budgets that have absolutely nothing to do with median or mean incomes.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']Mykey income is not the only thing that can have an effect on holiday spending.

Take for example the fact that for 6 months this year every domestic car maker offered a combination of 1.9% interest on top of employee pricing. Every car sold for 6 months that was domestic may have saved buyers $150+ a month. There's also been a seismic shift in how people are financing their homes resulting in significantly lower mortgage payments. Last but not least the stock market has had a very good year as has the housing market. Those both are heavy contributors to how much money people have at their disposal from capital gains or dividend payments.

Right there are four widespread financial factors that put money in household budgets that have absolutely nothing to do with median or mean incomes.[/QUOTE]


Yeah but you seem to forget that many families in america are not invested in the stock market, cant really afford to buy a new car in the first place, arent selling their houses for huge winfalls. There is a certain group of americans that are benefitting from all those things, but you act like everyone's wallets are over flowing with cash now because of them. It is more likely that most families have taken advantage at one or two of these at the most, and the things you are talking about require money to begin with. Well if you are not making much money this isnt really going to effect you.
 
Bottom line we WILL become the new Mexico if someone in the government doesn't do something. Clinton AND Bush have been leading us down this path, COUGHNAFTAandCAFTACOUGH. Also look at all the White Collar labor being Outsourced. EVERYONE'S job is in danger except for the American CEO and the jobs that don't pay that well. Yes, yes you can argue doctors but look at hospitals even, they're Outsourcing Radiology jobs and whatever else they can and even the income for those will go down soon enough when people don't have enough money to pay for them.
 
[quote name='Sarang01']Bottom line we WILL become the new Mexico if someone in the government doesn't do something. Clinton AND Bush have been leading us down this path, COUGHNAFTAandCAFTACOUGH. Also look at all the White Collar labor being Outsourced. EVERYONE'S job is in danger except for the American CEO and the jobs that don't pay that well. Yes, yes you can argue doctors but look at hospitals even, they're Outsourcing Radiology jobs and whatever else they can and even the income for those will go down soon enough when people don't have enough money to pay for them.[/QUOTE]

ok, Lou Dobbs.
 
I've never heard Lou Dobbs speak this stuff but someone told me I sounded like him. I can just see what's coming and why we need Protectionist measures like Tarriffs as well as people who Outsource to be penalized further. Shit Thom Hartmann advocates for Tarriffs which I think are reasonable and logical. People need to start thinking of out economics and other economics of the world as different ecosystems. Would you introduce a bunch of different Flora and Fauna into one ecosystem haphazardly or would you introduce some reasonable measures to minimize the impact if it might be very strong?.
 
[quote name='Sarang01']I've never heard Lou Dobbs speak this stuff but someone told me I sounded like him. I can just see what's coming and why we need Protectionist measures like Tarriffs as well as people who Outsource to be penalized further. Shit Thom Hartmann advocates for Tarriffs which I think are reasonable and logical. People need to start thinking of out economics and other economics of the world as different ecosystems. Would you introduce a bunch of different Flora and Fauna into one ecosystem haphazardly or would you introduce some reasonable measures to minimize the impact if it might be very strong?.[/QUOTE]

But our protectionist policies harm many poorer nations, and we (as well as europe) have many more protectionist policies than countries in places like africa, giving us even more advantage. I'm more of a world first person than an america first person though. I don't have a problem with free trade by definition that much, its more with the way its practiced. Currently the most burden is placed on the poorer nations, while the richer nations tend to ignore the same principles. I'm a protectionist more than anything though, but if many of the poorest nations are held to free trade then so should we. The harm inflicted here is simply less than what happens elsewhere.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']But our protectionist policies harm many poorer nations, and we (as well as europe) have many more protectionist policies than countries in places like africa, giving us even more advantage. I'm more of a world first person than an america first person though. I don't have a problem with free trade by definition that much, its more with the way its practiced. Currently the most burden is placed on the poorer nations, while the richer nations tend to ignore the same principles. I'm a protectionist more than anything though, but if many of the poorest nations are held to free trade then so should we. The harm inflicted here is simply less than what happens elsewhere.[/QUOTE]

That is so true...why do we think we are the only country in the world that should be rich. IMO protectionist policies should go farther. If we are allowed to have nuclear weapons why can't other country's, etc. Why do we have the right to judge.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']Mykey income is not the only thing that can have an effect on holiday spending.

Take for example the fact that for 6 months this year every domestic car maker offered a combination of 1.9% interest on top of employee pricing. Every car sold for 6 months that was domestic may have saved buyers $150+ a month. There's also been a seismic shift in how people are financing their homes resulting in significantly lower mortgage payments. Last but not least the stock market has had a very good year as has the housing market. Those both are heavy contributors to how much money people have at their disposal from capital gains or dividend payments.

Right there are four widespread financial factors that put money in household budgets that have absolutely nothing to do with median or mean incomes.[/QUOTE]

That's all well and good, but does this mean that you can explain spending increases *every* year from 1990 to 2005 by citing similar measures? Perhaps you can; the point that I'm trying to make is that income has remained stable for a decade and a half (in constant dollars, just to be certain), yet spending (both in general and "holiday" spending) has increased from year to year. If you consider this, of course, the logical conclusion of this (stable incomes and increasing spending) is that, at some point, spending will eventually outpace income.

Additionally, many of us are aware of the new bankruptcy policies implemented this past October/November. I have a hard time with this policy because I'm torn on it. It's easy to write it off, try to say "it's corporatism" or some similar liberal battle cry (god knows I'm good at that). I think that's a partial truth. OTOH, there are very real trends in spending and bankruptcy filings that began to scare credit card companies. There have been increases in bankruptcy filings from year to year that motivated them to lobby for that bill, and not some "evil corporation" motive that had some white, business-suit clad fat cat trying to wring the ignorant proletariat for all he was worth. I'm torn because the corporations are right to seek protection in the face of increasing filings; I'm otherwise bothered by the numerous bailouts of failing corporations at the hand of the government (e.g., nullifying United Airlines' liability to its pension plan in the same week as approving the personal bankruptcy measure).

There are many things to consider, and perhaps you've brought up some of them (including the interest-only mortgage, something I'm abivalent on). The point that I'm trying to make is the logical collision of spending increases and stable incomes cannot continually be alleived by low interest rates (arguably a phenomenon of only the past 4 years, one that's been reversing course for the past 12 months).
 
[quote name='steveinneed']That is so true...why do we think we are the only country in the world that should be rich. IMO protectionist policies should go farther. If we are allowed to have nuclear weapons why can't other country's, etc. Why do we have the right to judge.[/QUOTE]

I think I finally understand you...you're one of those "citizens of the world" and a communist. You don't feel any loyalty to your own country and you evidently live in the dream world where countries like the U.S. and Britain, who have had nuclear weapons and not used them in many wars in over 50 years, don't have any more right to nuclear weapons than countries led by madmen who starve their own people and want to annihilate Israel. What a wondeful utopian world if those folks got nuclear weapons! I mean, they have the same right to them as we do...

And free trade, as you may notice from our high economic growth rates and low unemployment rates, hasn't exactly caused our economy to tank. Most economists will tell you free trade has greatly benefitted our country (and other countries too), although there are growing pains when certain jobs get eliminated and those people have to be retrained to fill the new jobs created.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']I think I finally understand you...you're one of those "citizens of the world" and a communist. You don't feel any loyalty to your own country and you evidently live in the dream world where countries like the U.S. and Britain, who have had nuclear weapons and not used them in many wars in over 50 years, don't have any more right to nuclear weapons than countries led by madmen who starve their own people and want to annihilate Israel. What a wondeful utopian world if those folks got nuclear weapons! I mean, they have the same right to them as we do...

And free trade, as you may notice from our high economic growth rates and low unemployment rates, hasn't exactly caused our economy to tank. Most economists will tell you free trade has greatly benefitted our country (and other countries too), although there are growing pains when certain jobs get eliminated and those people have to be retrained to fill the new jobs created.[/QUOTE]

Of course there should also be provisions. It's so easy for you to call someone a communist when there really is no substance to it. Still, how can the U.S. judge what countries can do this or that. We don't want any arab countries to have nuclear weapons because we don't like them it seems. We won't even let them have them with the proper provisions. Maybe they really are using them for nuclear power to use for their country. Or is that even the point?
 
[quote name='elprincipe']I think I finally understand you...you're one of those "citizens of the world" and a communist. You don't feel any loyalty to your own country and you evidently live in the dream world where countries like the U.S. and Britain, who have had nuclear weapons and not used them in many wars in over 50 years, don't have any more right to nuclear weapons than countries led by madmen who starve their own people and want to annihilate Israel. What a wondeful utopian world if those folks got nuclear weapons! I mean, they have the same right to them as we do...[/QUOTE]
So what gives us the privilege, dare I say the right, to own them? Steveinneed's position is less like communism, and more like an adherence to notion of sovreignty. We have little right to mess with other sovreign states' sovreignty.
 
[quote name='steveinneed']Of course there should also be provisions. It's so easy for you to call someone a communist when there really is no substance to it. Still, how can the U.S. judge what countries can do this or that. We don't want any arab countries to have nuclear weapons because we don't like them it seems. We won't even let them have them with the proper provisions. Maybe they really are using them for nuclear power to use for their country. Or is that even the point?[/QUOTE]

The point for them (Iran, North Korea) would not be for nuclear power. If you believe that you're either ignorant or just plain dumb. Again, your position is that Iran, whose president recently vowed to wipe Israel off the map and who supports terrorist groups like Hezbollah unabashedly, has the same right to have nuclear weapons as the United States, a stable democracy with a history of not using nuclear weapons in war for more than 60 years. Your position, in other words, is ridiculous.

[quote name='capitalist_mao']So what gives us the privilege, dare I say the right, to own them? Steveinneed's position is less like communism, and more like an adherence to notion of sovreignty. We have little right to mess with other sovreign states' sovreignty.[/QUOTE]

See above. We have them for defensive reasons. Did the U.S. use nuclear weapons to wipe out North Korea, China, North Vietnam, Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, etc.? Of course not. Would North Korea not use them against South Korea or Japan or even us, were their missile technology to improve enough? I don't think you can reasonably answer that question "of course not." Same with Iran and certain other countries.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']See above. We have them for defensive reasons. Did the U.S. use nuclear weapons to wipe out North Korea, China, North Vietnam, Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, etc.? Of course not. Would North Korea not use them against South Korea or Japan or even us, were their missile technology to improve enough? I don't think you can reasonably answer that question "of course not." Same with Iran and certain other countries.[/QUOTE]

I SERIOUSLY doubt Iran's leaders are irrational enough to use nuclear weapons, lest it have similar retribution wreaked upon them, 100 times over. Most Political Scientists I've talked to (who are all over the political spectrum) tend to feel the same way. Most writing I've read believe that states seek nuclear weapons, not to use, but to join the "nuclear club".

You saw how much the US bowed to N Korea as it was accelerating completion of it's nuclear program. We've already made the same agreement with N Korea earlier in the 90s (when Taepo Dong II was launced over the pacific). when we, essentially, reneged on the deal (by being egregiously late on supplies), they decided to continue the production.

The problem lies, not in the state's usage of weapons, but in how easily these weapons can be proliferated from the state's caches and scientists to groups (take A.Q. Khan).
 
Inflation....

You spend $100 last year on a toy. That same toy would cost $110. Money is worth less because Bush and Congress are driving the country into the ground.
 
[quote name='David85']Inflation....

You spend $100 last year on a toy. That same toy would cost $110. Money is worth less because Bush and Congress are driving the country into the ground.[/QUOTE]
This argument, on a site for cheap video games, where people are *outraged* that next gen titles will MSRP for $60 for the first time since the SNES days (okay, N64 too), doesn't really hold much water.
 
[quote name='capitalist_mao']I SERIOUSLY doubt Iran's leaders are irrational enough to use nuclear weapons, lest it have similar retribution wreaked upon them, 100 times over. Most Political Scientists I've talked to (who are all over the political spectrum) tend to feel the same way. Most writing I've read believe that states seek nuclear weapons, not to use, but to join the "nuclear club".[/QUOTE]

I don't know, Iran's leaders are pretty irrational, as is North Korea's leader. But I agree with you (as per below) that the greater danger is they will give nuclear weapons to terrorists (or have them stolen).

[quote name='capitalist_mao']You saw how much the US bowed to N Korea as it was accelerating completion of it's nuclear program. We've already made the same agreement with N Korea earlier in the 90s (when Taepo Dong II was launced over the pacific). when we, essentially, reneged on the deal (by being egregiously late on supplies), they decided to continue the production.[/QUOTE]

You must be reading too much North Korean propaganda. You think WE reneged on the deal?! They restarted their program shortly after the Agreed Framework was put into place and tried to keep it secret while we held up our end of the bargain. The original agreement was the Clinton adminstration's extremely misguided attempt at appeasement, which of course did not work.

[quote name='capitalist_mao']The problem lies, not in the state's usage of weapons, but in how easily these weapons can be proliferated from the state's caches and scientists to groups (take A.Q. Khan).[/QUOTE]

I agree that the bigger problem is a possible terrorist usage of nuclear weapons. All the more reason that Iran and North Korea, to name a couple, should not have them. After all, Iran supports a major terrorist group in Hezbollah, and North Korea has shown that they will sell their technology to anyone for a price (Libya comes to mind).

To put it bluntly, your philosophy is quaint.
 
I don't see Iran as dangerous unless it is:

A) attacked and facing defeat
B) collapses

While I don't want them to have nuclear weapons, I think it is reasonable considering hostility they face from the u.s. and Israel. There are legitimate defensive reasons for them to have them, and probably it would make a war or nuclear conflict less likely, as the u.s. or Israel would likely never use them knowing the enemy has them.

I still don't want them to have them, but I think Israel would be more likely to use them than Iran, again not considering my 2 above conditions (A also being a condition for Israel). Then again I don't see Iran as irrational either.

North Korea is another story, they are not rational.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']You must be reading too much North Korean propaganda. You think WE reneged on the deal?! They restarted their program shortly after the Agreed Framework was put into place and tried to keep it secret while we held up our end of the bargain. [/QUOTE]
A) I seriously doubt a PBS documentary is considered DPRK propaganda
B) I don't see much difference between Bush's appeasement and Clinton's appeasement.
C) I've seen nothing about N Korea restarting their programs until 99, which is a few years after the Republican congress took power and deemed it unworth to continue "appeasing" N Korea.

In the end, your view is specifically Americanized. You really seem to be unable to see beyond American interests. As Bob the Angry Flower once said: "I understand your position, Prime Minister. Now I'm asking you to understand MY position".
 
If a video game last year cost $50 and this year one cost $70, you are going to buy it for your kid.

So 10 video games last year bring in $500, this year it brings in $700.

Plus the population is bigger so the rich have to buy more gifts for their growing families.
 
[quote name='David85']If a video game last year cost $50 and this year one cost $70, you are going to buy it for your kid.

So 10 video games last year bring in $500, this year it brings in $700.

Plus the population is bigger so the rich have to buy more gifts for their growing families.[/QUOTE]

Goddammit David, did you read what I said? Show me a game that costs $50 last year and $70 this year. Show me a game that costs $70 this year period; outside of Working Designs software and 360 software, you won't find it.

I already pointed out that people are throwing a shitstorm about 360's MSRP at $60 (for third party titles, it would seem) exposes just how little inflation there is in the gaming market.

Now, if you want to talk movies, that's another story. Of course, when analyses are made in constant dollars, then your argument suddenly goes missing.
 
[quote name='capitalist_mao']A) I seriously doubt a PBS documentary is considered DPRK propaganda
B) I don't see much difference between Bush's appeasement and Clinton's appeasement.
C) I've seen nothing about N Korea restarting their programs until 99, which is a few years after the Republican congress took power and deemed it unworth to continue "appeasing" N Korea.

In the end, your view is specifically Americanized. You really seem to be unable to see beyond American interests. As Bob the Angry Flower once said: "I understand your position, Prime Minister. Now I'm asking you to understand MY position".[/QUOTE]

Obviously my view is an American view; I'm an American.

If PBS said that the U.S. were the ones who reneged on the deal, they were dead wrong. I doubt they said it and I'd like to see a link to some proof, but if they did they were absolutely incorrect.

http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/aankorea.htm

^ I suggest you read that. You should learn something about what you're talking about, after all.

And I don't see what you feel is the same about Bush and Clinton. Clinton appeased N.Korea by giving them oil and the promise of nuclear power plants built at our expense in exchange for their promise (subsequently broken) to stop development of nuclear weapons. Bush confronted N.Korea with the facts that they were violating the Agreed Framework and has tried to come up with a solution.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']But our protectionist policies harm many poorer nations, and we (as well as europe) have many more protectionist policies than countries in places like africa, giving us even more advantage. I'm more of a world first person than an america first person though. I don't have a problem with free trade by definition that much, its more with the way its practiced. Currently the most burden is placed on the poorer nations, while the richer nations tend to ignore the same principles. I'm a protectionist more than anything though, but if many of the poorest nations are held to free trade then so should we. The harm inflicted here is simply less than what happens elsewhere.[/QUOTE]

I think you're mistaking Fair Trade with Free Trade. Go to a Fair Trade shop and see how much you pay when those workers are making FAIR Trade wages compared to Free Trade. Free Trade has done nothing but hurt the Middle Class worker by creating a legit wealth redistribution scheme. Tell me how Free Trade is fair when you and I are either competing with the economic conditions of the Blue Collar labor in China, Indonesia, Taiwan, El Salvador and Mexico or the same pitiful White Collar intellectuals in India. You want to see what Corporations think of all of us? Or the big scumbags rather? Look at what Tyson did in North or South Carolina in that factory, making the workers wear DIAPERS so they wouldn't have to go to the bathroom to keep production up, never mind how humiliating and degrading said treatment was. Don't forget down in South America where workers at a Wal-Mart factory were LOCKED in. If they could do that to us now they would. Are there good business owners who understand? Yes but the majority of them do not live in Corporate America. Bottom line I don't think I should have to compete with a household that has 5-6 people living in it along with no microwave or washer and dryer as well as no dishwater but has a stove that uses coal. Instead of being divided with these people we should be united with them, FORCING a living and enjoyable wage on their cultural products being exported without Protectionist measures.
 
[quote name='Sarang01']I think you're mistaking Fair Trade with Free Trade. Go to a Fair Trade shop and see how much you pay when those workers are making FAIR Trade wages compared to Free Trade. Free Trade has done nothing but hurt the Middle Class worker by creating a legit wealth redistribution scheme. Tell me how Free Trade is fair when you and I are either competing with the economic conditions of the Blue Collar labor in China, Indonesia, Taiwan, El Salvador and Mexico or the same pitiful White Collar intellectuals in India. You want to see what Corporations think of all of us? Or the big scumbags rather? Look at what Tyson did in North or South Carolina in that factory, making the workers wear DIAPERS so they wouldn't have to go to the bathroom to keep production up, never mind how humiliating and degrading said treatment was. Don't forget down in South America where workers at a Wal-Mart factory were LOCKED in. If they could do that to us now they would. Are there good business owners who understand? Yes but the majority of them do not live in Corporate America. Bottom line I don't think I should have to compete with a household that has 5-6 people living in it along with no microwave or washer and dryer as well as no dishwater but has a stove that uses coal. Instead of being divided with these people we should be united with them, FORCING a living and enjoyable wage on their cultural products being exported without Protectionist measures.[/QUOTE]

I'm not really sure what point of mine you are arguing, but free trade and fair trade aren't mutually exclusive.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']I'm not really sure what point of mine you are arguing, but free trade and fair trade aren't mutually exclusive.[/QUOTE]

I think you're deluding yourself truly. Alonzo I really expected more from you than to drink the corporate kool-aid. YOU may be fine somewhat switching places with the Chinese in the future but I won't be hence why I'm thinking after I deal with some shit I get a Green Card to work in England, Japan or Korea and later hide out in South America or Africa when China takes over the last two I mentioned. Can this crazy shit be prevented? Yeah but the CEO's Avarice is clouding his mind.
 
[quote name='Sarang01']I think you're deluding yourself truly. Alonzo I really expected more from you than to drink the corporate kool-aid. YOU may be fine somewhat switching places with the Chinese in the future but I won't be hence why I'm thinking after I deal with some shit I get a Green Card to work in England, Japan or Korea and later hide out in South America or Africa when China takes over the last two I mentioned. Can this crazy shit be prevented? Yeah but the CEO's Avarice is clouding his mind.[/QUOTE]

Again, I'm really not sure what part of my argument you are arguing against. It seems that you're saying I should be 100% anti capitalist and anti free trade otherwise I'm a corporate apologist, but I'm rarely 100% anything.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']Again, I'm really not sure what part of my argument you are arguing against. It seems that you're saying I should be 100% anti capitalist and anti free trade otherwise I'm a corporate apologist, but I'm rarely 100% anything.[/QUOTE]

Look I'm Pro-Capitalist but Anti-Corporation and don't buy the Corporate PROPOGANDA that FREE Trade is good when it's clearly an attempt by the Rich here and worldwide to steal our wealth, in the process destroying the Middle Class. Do me a favor and watch "The Corporation".
 
[quote name='Sarang01']Look I'm Pro-Capitalist but Anti-Corporation and don't buy the Corporate PROPOGANDA that FREE Trade is good when it's clearly an attempt by the Rich here and worldwide to steal our wealth, in the process destroying the Middle Class. Do me a favor and watch "The Corporation".[/QUOTE]

I took an economics class on the differences between the 1st and 3rd world once and I saw a bunch of anti corporate movies (as well as in sociology classes), though that one wasn't out yet. But lets go back to the post that started this, as there seems to be a significant difference between what you think my view is and what I actually said it was:

But our protectionist policies harm many poorer nations, and we (as well as europe) have many more protectionist policies than countries in places like africa, giving us even more advantage. I'm more of a world first person than an america first person though. I don't have a problem with free trade by definition that much, its more with the way its practiced. Currently the most burden is placed on the poorer nations, while the richer nations tend to ignore the same principles. I'm a protectionist more than anything though, but if many of the poorest nations are held to free trade then so should we. The harm inflicted here is simply less than what happens elsewhere.
Click to expand...



My initial comment to the movie was I don't exactly make my opinion based on one sided documentaries. But after I thought about it I figured, while that probably does apply here, I haven't seen it so I can't really comment on it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top