Free your mind your ass and will follow

Free your mind your ass and will follow

Free your ass of your head, and it may start to think again!

I keep hearing pinheads yammer about Hamiltonian policies, and it is a good time to remind you that there is a very good reason Alexander Hamilton never became president. It is believed that Hamilton is our nation's founding pinhead. Much of what he advocated was tantamount to the philosophies espoused by Karl Marx, which was becoming popular among the pinhead elite of the day. This was long before the Marxist theories had been implemented fully and the world realized they were an abject failure in practice. At the time, it seemed like a good idea, and a good template to follow.

It's important to remember, in the day of Hamilton and the founding of our nation, the overwhelming and vast majority of "corporations" were owned solely by the government or the royal family, there were very few private corporations at that time, because "free enterprise" was just being created. Some of the measures suggested by Hamilton, were indeed implemented, and were essential in building a base of privately owned corporations in America. Of course, privately owned corporations were not generally known as "corporations" during that time, and since they didn't really deal in imports/exports, but mostly domestic trade, they weren't subject to the tariffs and such. This gave the fledgling young companies an advantage over the conglomerate entities who dominated world trade of the time. Things have changed. Corporations in America are not owned by the government (except GM), they are owned by private enterprise.

Now, Alex Hamilton wrote and said a lot of stuff, but the fact remains, he did not live in our time, nor did any of the other founding fathers. So what they may have articulated in 1776, is pretty irrelevant to business and economics of today. Unless, of course, you are a Marxist liberal who endorses those policies, then it all sounds lovely... Hamilton... founding father... very smart guy... his words must be relevant! I suspect, had Hamilton lived to be 190, and observed the devastation, destruction, and human suffering caused by Marxist Socialism... the millions who were marched to their deaths in the Russian Gulags, the millions who were incinerated in Germany, the millions who were enslaved throughout China and southeast Asia, perhaps Hamilton would have rethought his ideas. But he lived when he lived, in a much simpler time, where the issues regarding capitalism and free market economies were much less complicated.

It's important, when you do pull your heads out of your ass, to remember we must take what founding fathers said, in context of the times, and as these things were articulated with respect for the conditions of their day, which simply no longer apply, to a great degree, in 2010. Some principles do, but others have been tried and tested through history since then, and they failed miserably. Such is the case with Marxism.
 
Dixie said:
Free your mind your ass and will follow

Free your ass of your head, and it may start to think again!

I keep hearing pinheads yammer about Hamiltonian policies, and it is a good time to remind you that there is a very good reason Alexander Hamilton never became president. It is believed that Hamilton is our nation's founding pinhead. Much of what he advocated was tantamount to the philosophies espoused by Karl Marx, which was becoming popular among the pinhead elite of the day. This was long before the Marxist theories had been implemented fully and the world realized they were an abject failure in practice. At the time, it seemed like a good idea, and a good template to follow.

It's important to remember, in the day of Hamilton and the founding of our nation, the overwhelming and vast majority of "corporations" were owned solely by the government or the royal family, there were very few private corporations at that time, because "free enterprise" was just being created. Some of the measures suggested by Hamilton, were indeed implemented, and were essential in building a base of privately owned corporations in America. Of course, privately owned corporations were not generally known as "corporations" during that time, and since they didn't really deal in imports/exports, but mostly domestic trade, they weren't subject to the tariffs and such. This gave the fledgling young companies an advantage over the conglomerate entities who dominated world trade of the time. Things have changed. Corporations in America are not owned by the government (except GM), they are owned by private enterprise.

Now, Alex Hamilton wrote and said a lot of stuff, but the fact remains, he did not live in our time, nor did any of the other founding fathers. So what they may have articulated in 1776, is pretty irrelevant to business and economics of today. Unless, of course, you are a Marxist liberal who endorses those policies, then it all sounds lovely... Hamilton... founding father... very smart guy... his words must be relevant! I suspect, had Hamilton lived to be 190, and observed the devastation, destruction, and human suffering caused by Marxist Socialism... the millions who were marched to their deaths in the Russian Gulags, the millions who were incinerated in Germany, the millions who were enslaved throughout China and southeast Asia, perhaps Hamilton would have rethought his ideas. But he lived when he lived, in a much simpler time, where the issues regarding capitalism and free market economies were much less complicated.

It's important, when you do pull your heads out of your ass, to remember we must take what founding fathers said, in context of the times, and as these things were articulated with respect for the conditions of their day, which simply no longer apply, to a great degree, in 2010. Some principles do, but others have been tried and tested through history since then, and they failed miserably. Such is the case with Marxism.
Click to expand...


Thanks mr. talky pants, but the fact is that protectionism grows domestic production. Thanks.
 
AssHatZombie said:
Thanks mr. talky pants, but the fact is that protectionism grows domestic production. Thanks.
Click to expand...

No, protectionism grows despair and hardship.

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=10983

Go read it, AssHead!

[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protectionism"]Protectionism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

Historically, protectionism was associated with economic theories such as mercantilism (that believed that it is beneficial to maintain a positive trade balance), and import substitution. During that time, Adam Smith famously warned against the 'interested sophistry' of industry, seeking to gain advantage at the cost of the consumers.

Most modern economists agree that protectionism is harmful in that its costs outweigh the benefits, and that it impedes economic growth.Economics Nobel prize winner and trade theorist Paul Krugman once famously stated that, "If there were an Economist’s Creed, it would surely contain the affirmations 'I understand the Principle of Comparative Advantage' and 'I advocate Free Trade'."

Recent examples of protectionism in developed countries are typically motivated by the desire to protect the livelihoods of individuals in politically important domestic industries. Whereas formerly mostly blue-collar jobs were being lost from developed countries to foreign competition, in recent years there has been a renewed discussion of protectionism due to offshore outsourcing and the loss of white-collar jobs.

Protectionism is frequently criticized as harming the people it is meant to help. Most mainstream economists instead support free trade. Economic theory, under the principle of comparative advantage, shows that the gains from free trade outweigh any losses as free trade creates more jobs than it destroys because it allows countries to specialize in the production of goods and services in which they have a comparative advantage. Protectionism results in deadweight loss; this loss to overall welfare gives no-one any benefit, unlike in a free market, where there is no such total loss. According to economist Stephen P. Magee, the benefits of free trade outweigh the losses by as much as 100 to 1.

Most economists, including Nobel prize winners Milton Friedman and Paul Krugman, believe that free trade helps workers in developing countries, even though they are not subject to the stringent health and labour standards of developed countries. This is because "the growth of manufacturing — and of the myriad other jobs that the new export sector creates — has a ripple effect throughout the economy" that creates competition among producers, lifting wages and living conditions. Economists have suggested that those who support protectionism ostensibly to further the interests of workers in least developed countries are in fact being disingenuous, seeking only to protect jobs in developed countries. Additionally, workers in the least developed countries only accept jobs if they are the best on offer, as all mutually consensual exchanges must be of benefit to both sides, else they wouldn't be entered into freely. That they accept low-paying jobs from companies in developed countries shows that their other employment prospects are worse.

Alan Greenspan, former chair of the American Federal Reserve, has criticized protectionist proposals as leading "to an atrophy of our competitive ability. ... If the protectionist route is followed, newer, more efficient industries will have less scope to expand, and overall output and economic welfare will suffer."

Protectionism has also been accused of being one of the major causes of war. Proponents of this theory point to the constant warfare in the 17th and 18th centuries among European countries whose governments were predominantly mercantilist and protectionist, the American Revolution, which came about primarily due to British tariffs and taxes, as well as the protective policies preceding both World War I and World War II. According to Frederic Bastiat, "When goods cannot cross borders, armies will."

Free trade promotes equal access to domestic resources (human, natural, capital, etc.) for domestic participants and foreign participants alike. Some thinkers extend that under free trade, citizens of participating countries deserve equal access to resources and social welfare (labor laws, education, etc.). Visa entrance policies tend to discourage free reallocation between many countries, and encourage it with others. High freedom and mobility has been shown to lead to far greater development than aid programs in many cases, for example eastern European countries in the European Union. In other words visa entrance requirements are a form of local protectionism.
 
Dixie said:
No, protectionism grows despair and hardship.

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=10983

Go read it, AssHead!

Protectionism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Historically, protectionism was associated with economic theories such as mercantilism (that believed that it is beneficial to maintain a positive trade balance), and import substitution. During that time, Adam Smith famously warned against the 'interested sophistry' of industry, seeking to gain advantage at the cost of the consumers.

Most modern economists agree that protectionism is harmful in that its costs outweigh the benefits, and that it impedes economic growth.Economics Nobel prize winner and trade theorist Paul Krugman once famously stated that, "If there were an Economist’s Creed, it would surely contain the affirmations 'I understand the Principle of Comparative Advantage' and 'I advocate Free Trade'."

Recent examples of protectionism in developed countries are typically motivated by the desire to protect the livelihoods of individuals in politically important domestic industries. Whereas formerly mostly blue-collar jobs were being lost from developed countries to foreign competition, in recent years there has been a renewed discussion of protectionism due to offshore outsourcing and the loss of white-collar jobs.

Protectionism is frequently criticized as harming the people it is meant to help. Most mainstream economists instead support free trade. Economic theory, under the principle of comparative advantage, shows that the gains from free trade outweigh any losses as free trade creates more jobs than it destroys because it allows countries to specialize in the production of goods and services in which they have a comparative advantage. Protectionism results in deadweight loss; this loss to overall welfare gives no-one any benefit, unlike in a free market, where there is no such total loss. According to economist Stephen P. Magee, the benefits of free trade outweigh the losses by as much as 100 to 1.

Most economists, including Nobel prize winners Milton Friedman and Paul Krugman, believe that free trade helps workers in developing countries, even though they are not subject to the stringent health and labour standards of developed countries. This is because "the growth of manufacturing — and of the myriad other jobs that the new export sector creates — has a ripple effect throughout the economy" that creates competition among producers, lifting wages and living conditions. Economists have suggested that those who support protectionism ostensibly to further the interests of workers in least developed countries are in fact being disingenuous, seeking only to protect jobs in developed countries. Additionally, workers in the least developed countries only accept jobs if they are the best on offer, as all mutually consensual exchanges must be of benefit to both sides, else they wouldn't be entered into freely. That they accept low-paying jobs from companies in developed countries shows that their other employment prospects are worse.

Alan Greenspan, former chair of the American Federal Reserve, has criticized protectionist proposals as leading "to an atrophy of our competitive ability. ... If the protectionist route is followed, newer, more efficient industries will have less scope to expand, and overall output and economic welfare will suffer."

Protectionism has also been accused of being one of the major causes of war. Proponents of this theory point to the constant warfare in the 17th and 18th centuries among European countries whose governments were predominantly mercantilist and protectionist, the American Revolution, which came about primarily due to British tariffs and taxes, as well as the protective policies preceding both World War I and World War II. According to Frederic Bastiat, "When goods cannot cross borders, armies will."

Free trade promotes equal access to domestic resources (human, natural, capital, etc.) for domestic participants and foreign participants alike. Some thinkers extend that under free trade, citizens of participating countries deserve equal access to resources and social welfare (labor laws, education, etc.). Visa entrance policies tend to discourage free reallocation between many countries, and encourage it with others. High freedom and mobility has been shown to lead to far greater development than aid programs in many cases, for example eastern European countries in the European Union. In other words visa entrance requirements are a form of local protectionism.
Click to expand...

You're just spouting globalist propaganda. Protectionism would save the american economy.

Do you not understand why trade imbalances become one way money suck of wealth out of the society?

Globalization is the cause of war, the ideological fuel which justifies the killing and the war profiteering.

Economists are paid to sell the lies of globalization zealotry, and, being so, should have their opinions discounted. They're on the take. It's called corruption.
 
My point isn't that Intel was brilliant. The company was founded at a time when it was easier to scale domestically. For one thing, China wasn't yet open for business. More importantly, the U.S. had not yet forgotten that scaling was crucial to its economic future.

How could the U.S. have forgotten? I believe the answer has to do with a general undervaluing of manufacturing—the idea that as long as "knowledge work" stays in the U.S., it doesn't matter what happens to factory jobs. It's not just newspaper commentators who spread this idea. Consider this passage by Princeton University economist Alan S. Blinder: "The TV manufacturing industry really started here, and at one point employed many workers. But as TV sets became 'just a commodity,' their production moved offshore to locations with much lower wages. And nowadays the number of television sets manufactured in the U.S. is zero. A failure? No, a success."

I disagree. Not only did we lose an untold number of jobs, we broke the chain of experience that is so important in technological evolution. As happened with batteries, abandoning today's "commodity" manufacturing can lock you out of tomorrow's emerging industry.
WANTED: JOB-CENTRIC ECONOMICS
Our fundamental economic beliefs, which we have elevated from a conviction based on observation to an unquestioned truism, is that the free market is the best of all economic systems—the freer the better. Our generation has seen the decisive victory of free-market principles over planned economies. So we stick with this belief, largely oblivious to emerging evidence that while free markets beat planned economies, there may be room for a modification that is even better.

Such evidence stares at us from the performance of several Asian countries in the past few decades. These countries seem to understand that job creation must be the No. 1 objective of state economic policy. The government plays a strategic role in setting the priorities and arraying the forces and organization necessary to achieve this goal. The rapid development of the Asian economies provides numerous illustrations. In a thorough study of the industrial development of East Asia, Robert Wade of the London School of Economics found that these economies turned in precedent-shattering economic performances over the '70s and '80s in large part because of the effective involvement of the government in targeting the growth of manufacturing industries.

Consider the "Golden Projects," a series of digital initiatives driven by the Chinese government in the late 1980s and 1990s. Beijing was convinced of the importance of electronic networks—used for transactions, communications, and coordination—in enabling job creation, particularly in the less developed parts of the country. Consequently, the Golden Projects enjoyed priority funding. In time they contributed to the rapid development of China's information infrastructure and the country's economic growth.

How do we turn such Asian experience into intelligent action here and now? Long term, we need a job-centric economic theory—and job-centric political leadership—to guide our plans and actions. In the meantime, consider some basic thoughts from a onetime factory guy.

Silicon Valley is a community with a strong tradition of engineering, and engineers are a peculiar breed. They are eager to solve whatever problems they encounter. If profit margins are the problem, we go to work on margins, with exquisite focus. Each company, ruggedly individualistic, does its best to expand efficiently and improve its own profitability. However, our pursuit of our individual businesses, which often involves transferring manufacturing and a great deal of engineering out of the country, has hindered our ability to bring innovations to scale at home. Without scaling, we don't just lose jobs—we lose our hold on new technologies. Losing the ability to scale will ultimately damage our capacity to innovate.

The story comes to mind of an engineer who was to be executed by guillotine. The guillotine was stuck, and custom required that if the blade didn't drop, the condemned man was set free. Before this could happen, the engineer pointed with excitement to a rusty pulley, and told the executioner to apply some oil there. Off went his head.

We got to our current state as a consequence of many of us taking actions focused on our own companies' next milestones. An example: Five years ago a friend joined a large VC firm as a partner. His responsibility was to make sure that all the startups they funded had a "China strategy," meaning a plan to move what jobs they could to China. He was going around with an oil can, applying drops to the guillotine in case it was stuck. We should put away our oil cans. VCs should have a partner in charge of every startup's "U.S. strategy."

The first task is to rebuild our industrial commons. We should develop a system of financial incentives: Levy an extra tax on the product of offshored labor. (If the result is a trade war, treat it like other wars—fight to win.) Keep that money separate. Deposit it in the coffers of what we might call the Scaling Bank of the U.S. and make these sums available to companies that will scale their American operations. Such a system would be a daily reminder that while pursuing our company goals, all of us in business have a responsibility to maintain the industrial base on which we depend and the society whose adaptability—and stability—we may have taken for granted.

I fled Hungary as a young man in 1956 to come to the U.S. Growing up in the Soviet bloc, I witnessed first-hand the perils of both government overreach and a stratified population. Most Americans probably aren't aware that there was a time in this country when tanks and cavalry were massed on Pennsylvania Avenue to chase away the unemployed. It was 1932; thousands of jobless veterans were demonstrating outside the White House. Soldiers with fixed bayonets and live ammunition moved in on them, and herded them away from the White House. In America! Unemployment is corrosive. If what I'm suggesting sounds protectionist, so be it.

Every day, that Palo Alto restaurant where I met the Chinese venture capitalists is full of technology executives and entrepreneurs. Many of them are my friends. I understand the technological challenges they face, along with the financial pressure they're under from directors and shareholders. Can we expect them to take on yet another assignment, to work on behalf of a loosely defined community of companies, employees, and employees yet to be hired? To do so is undoubtedly naïve. Yet the imperative for change is real and the choice is simple. If we want to remain a leading economy, we change on our own, or change will continue to be forced upon us.

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/10_28/b4186048358596_page_4.htm
 
It's quite hilarious how ignorant Dixie is about how protectionism stimulates domestic job creation. It's a very simple dynamic, yet he throws a hissy over it and goes all retarded.
 
Come on you globalist fucknutters. Tell us why protectionism to save the American people is "impossible" then spout some made up brainwashed reasons. Do it.

Your silence is admission of the intellectual bankruptedness of the globalist movement.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top