I just finished watching a CNBC program that provided an interesting insight into the US economic relationship with China. I must say it was distressing to me to see so many Americans in our manufacturing sector put out of work by companies that have chosen to move overseas to take advantage of lower labor costs and less environmental regulation.
I am tired of listening to economists say that it is okay that we lose our manufacturing jobs because the company headquarters and most of the management and corporate jobs remain stateside. I think we need to get realistic in the states and realize that we are going to need a diverse mix of jobs in order to maintain full employment. Not everyone in a society can be a computer engineer, doctor, or lawyer. We need jobs and opportunity for people who do not have the mental capacity for top notch white color work to make sure that they can support themselves and afford a decent standard of living.
I am really beginning to question the wisdom of free trade and its benefits to our communities and citizens. My hope has been that higher oil prices would begin to drive transportation costs up making it more expensive to ship cheap products from overseas and thus force us to make our products closer to home. Because this has failed to materialize, I am thinking of boycotting any product made overseas and voting with my wallet.
I am curious what others on this board feel regarding this topic and whether anyone makes an attempt to consume American made products. I for one am willing to pay more for a product that is made in America knowing that it will keep one more of my neighbors employed and an American community intact.
Boycott China..
Moderator: Global Moderator
Boycott China..
Last edited by doodle on Sun Jun 05, 2011 8:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.
All of humanity's problems stem from man's inability to sit quietly in a room alone. - Blaise Pascal
Re: Boycott China..
I appreciate your passion for the issue and understand where you are coming from. I grew up in a blue collar household so my Dad shares the same views. However, while I sympathize with your position, I don't share it. As Evelyn Beatrice Hall once said in reference to Voltaire, "I disagree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it."
I think China is going to get burned by pursuing mercantilist trade policies, and at some point a certain amount of manufacturing jobs will come back to the U.S. Until then, I'm not willing to pay 2x more just because a product was made in America (product quality being equal, of course). People need to provide for their families in China just like they do in the U.S. That said, buying products is very much a democratic process. If enough people share your view, more products will be made by Americans at higher cost because people are willing to pay for the perceived value. You see it in areas such as food, so you might also see it in lawn mowers and sneakers.
The cold truth is there are no safe jobs when working for someone else. The sooner most folks realize that and start killing their own dinner, the better.
I think China is going to get burned by pursuing mercantilist trade policies, and at some point a certain amount of manufacturing jobs will come back to the U.S. Until then, I'm not willing to pay 2x more just because a product was made in America (product quality being equal, of course). People need to provide for their families in China just like they do in the U.S. That said, buying products is very much a democratic process. If enough people share your view, more products will be made by Americans at higher cost because people are willing to pay for the perceived value. You see it in areas such as food, so you might also see it in lawn mowers and sneakers.
The cold truth is there are no safe jobs when working for someone else. The sooner most folks realize that and start killing their own dinner, the better.
Re: Boycott China..
The idea sounds great, but you will find many things that are not made in the US any more. And that is for a good reason: labor prices are so high here that you could not afford many items if they were. Good luck finding a DVD player that is made exclusively in the States. And if you do, I bet that it would cost well over 1K.
IMHO, we can not have it both ways. We can choose to slash our wages so that our labor is competitive in world markets, we can isolate ourselves and pay much higher prices at the store, or we can continue to import a large proportion of our goods.
IMHO, we can not have it both ways. We can choose to slash our wages so that our labor is competitive in world markets, we can isolate ourselves and pay much higher prices at the store, or we can continue to import a large proportion of our goods.
Re: Boycott China..
I view the tradeoffs somewhat differently....
I believe that there needs to be a rethinking of our consumption patterns in America and as humans in general. Cheap disposable goods based on low cost labor and materials is bad for local labor markets, communities, and the environment. I still marvel that I eat dinner at a table that was built a few years after the end of the Civil War. The table probably cost the equivalent of a few months wages or more for whoever bought it back then, but it has survived more than 150 years and will probably survive 150 more.
It used to be that companies built products with an emphasis on quality and durability. After World War 2 we started seeing the emergence of planned obsolescence and a huge advertising industry along with it to convince humans that their kitchen cabinets looked out of date, or their bedroom furniture needed to be switched out. Of course local craftsmen and manufacturers who built furniture to last generations couldn't price their goods competitively to keep up with the latest fashions. The majority lost out to lower and lower cost producers who used materials like particle wood down to what looks like cardboard in some of the latest furniture I have seen. You keep it for a few years and then toss it into a landfill.
Now, you might say that the manufacturers are just giving people what they want. They are reacting to the demands of the marketplace. Frankly, I think that is crap. People's wants and desires are shaped by a huge advertising industry that tells them what their kitchen should look like, or what clothes they must wear to be trendy. Advertising manufactures demand. In other words, we don't tell the companies what to produce, they tell us what we "need" and then sell it to us.
And so in America instead of investing our money in infrastructure, education, and science and technology we increasingly just send it overseas to buy more disposable junk that we will dump in a few years anyways. Meanwhile, the advertisers are working on what next years furniture, clothes, kitchens, cars, etc. should look like.
In my perfect world we rekindle the idea of quality. Products are made to last. They cost more but we feel good that a craftsman who puts pride into his work has a job, pays taxes, provides for his family, and contributes to his community. I really believe that unbridled consumption and avarice for cheap material goods is a detriment to the United States. An unbridled free market might create more material wealth, but it doesn't lead to better communities and happier people. The dislocations that it causes in society run counter to the majority of humans desires for stability and security.
I believe that there needs to be a rethinking of our consumption patterns in America and as humans in general. Cheap disposable goods based on low cost labor and materials is bad for local labor markets, communities, and the environment. I still marvel that I eat dinner at a table that was built a few years after the end of the Civil War. The table probably cost the equivalent of a few months wages or more for whoever bought it back then, but it has survived more than 150 years and will probably survive 150 more.
It used to be that companies built products with an emphasis on quality and durability. After World War 2 we started seeing the emergence of planned obsolescence and a huge advertising industry along with it to convince humans that their kitchen cabinets looked out of date, or their bedroom furniture needed to be switched out. Of course local craftsmen and manufacturers who built furniture to last generations couldn't price their goods competitively to keep up with the latest fashions. The majority lost out to lower and lower cost producers who used materials like particle wood down to what looks like cardboard in some of the latest furniture I have seen. You keep it for a few years and then toss it into a landfill.
Now, you might say that the manufacturers are just giving people what they want. They are reacting to the demands of the marketplace. Frankly, I think that is crap. People's wants and desires are shaped by a huge advertising industry that tells them what their kitchen should look like, or what clothes they must wear to be trendy. Advertising manufactures demand. In other words, we don't tell the companies what to produce, they tell us what we "need" and then sell it to us.
And so in America instead of investing our money in infrastructure, education, and science and technology we increasingly just send it overseas to buy more disposable junk that we will dump in a few years anyways. Meanwhile, the advertisers are working on what next years furniture, clothes, kitchens, cars, etc. should look like.
In my perfect world we rekindle the idea of quality. Products are made to last. They cost more but we feel good that a craftsman who puts pride into his work has a job, pays taxes, provides for his family, and contributes to his community. I really believe that unbridled consumption and avarice for cheap material goods is a detriment to the United States. An unbridled free market might create more material wealth, but it doesn't lead to better communities and happier people. The dislocations that it causes in society run counter to the majority of humans desires for stability and security.
Last edited by doodle on Sun Jun 05, 2011 10:16 pm, edited 1 time in total.
All of humanity's problems stem from man's inability to sit quietly in a room alone. - Blaise Pascal
Re: Boycott China..
By the way....
I find Noam Chomsky a refreshing counter opinion to the dominant economic thought prevalent today.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RxPUvQZ3 ... re=related
I find Noam Chomsky a refreshing counter opinion to the dominant economic thought prevalent today.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RxPUvQZ3 ... re=related
All of humanity's problems stem from man's inability to sit quietly in a room alone. - Blaise Pascal
Re: Boycott China..
Not unrelated - http://sendables.jibjab.com/originals/big_box_mart. There's a serious point here, which is that there's more to "cost" than the price you pay in a store and the notion that other things are equal (other than the price) is simply not true.
Re: Boycott China..
The dynamic witth China and other emerging markets where U.S. corporations can juice earnings by offshoring U.S. jobs is part of the reason I don't fear inflation in the U.S. that much.
I think the U.S. consumer will simply run out of money long before sustained inflation can set in. That's basically what happened in response to inflation in the first half of 2008--the price of everything started rising against a backdrop of static wages, and in response consumption basically collapsed.
I don't see any reason to think it will be different this time.
I think the U.S. consumer will simply run out of money long before sustained inflation can set in. That's basically what happened in response to inflation in the first half of 2008--the price of everything started rising against a backdrop of static wages, and in response consumption basically collapsed.
I don't see any reason to think it will be different this time.
Q: “Do you have funny shaped balloons?”
A: “Not unless round is funny.”
A: “Not unless round is funny.”
Re: Boycott China..
Totally agree rickb! I think the video sums up in two minutes what I was trying to get at.
MediumTex,
I believe that the picture you paint is going to be impossible for any politician to survive....
There will be measures taken to get Americans employed again even if that means erecting trade barriers and tariffs on imported goods. Our country will not suffer 10% plus employment for decades to come. I don't see America as a country that will muddle through this like Japan has done.
In the short term we might go on a money printing binge to dull the pain....ultimately I believe our country will rally behind a nationalistic sentiment to buy American. You can see the beginnings of this with the Pickens Energy Plan to wean us off OPEC oil. I only see this movement growing.
In my mind the only solution for our country is to reestablish a sense of national pride again. I really look at the current situation we are in as very similar to the period from the tail end of the Vietnam War until the first few years of Reagan.
MediumTex,
I believe that the picture you paint is going to be impossible for any politician to survive....
There will be measures taken to get Americans employed again even if that means erecting trade barriers and tariffs on imported goods. Our country will not suffer 10% plus employment for decades to come. I don't see America as a country that will muddle through this like Japan has done.
In the short term we might go on a money printing binge to dull the pain....ultimately I believe our country will rally behind a nationalistic sentiment to buy American. You can see the beginnings of this with the Pickens Energy Plan to wean us off OPEC oil. I only see this movement growing.
In my mind the only solution for our country is to reestablish a sense of national pride again. I really look at the current situation we are in as very similar to the period from the tail end of the Vietnam War until the first few years of Reagan.
Last edited by doodle on Sun Jun 05, 2011 10:28 pm, edited 1 time in total.
All of humanity's problems stem from man's inability to sit quietly in a room alone. - Blaise Pascal
Re: Boycott China..
A boycott? I don't think it's possible. I think even the little tags that say, "Made in the USA" are made in China. 
Last edited by Gumby on Sun Jun 05, 2011 10:51 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Nothing I say should be construed as advice or expertise. I am only sharing opinions which may or may not be applicable in any given case.
Re: Boycott China..
To whom do the politicians owe their loyalty?doodle wrote: MediumTex,
I believe that the picture you paint is going to be impossible for any politician to survive....
There will be measures taken to get Americans employed again even if that means erecting trade barriers and tariffs on imported goods. Our country will not suffer 10% plus employment for decades to come. I don't see America as a country that will muddle through this like Japan has done.
It is, of course, their sources of campaign contributions, which are the same corporate interests that have been growing profits through offshoring jobs for many years.
I always assume people will do what's in their own best interests, and for politicians Job #1 is getting re-elected.
I don't expect politicians to be any wiser in the future than they have been in the past. They will do the bidding of those who control the campaign financing purse strings.
I'm certainly ready to be pleasantly surprised, though.
Q: “Do you have funny shaped balloons?”
A: “Not unless round is funny.”
A: “Not unless round is funny.”
Re: Boycott China..
Just ask Mubarek how that worked out for him....
Ultimately politicians whether democratically elected or not are beholden to the population. Masses of people will eventually go into the streets and stir things up. We just haven't gotten to that point yet in America. Spain, Greece, Portugal, England I think paint a decent picture of what main street here in the states might look like pretty soon though.
My spirits were recently revived with the dance party at the Jefferson Memorial. I am happy that peaceful civil disobedience is still alive.
As negative as I can get reading the news, I have a deep conviction that America will pull through this period with a new sense of purpose and vitality. We just need to shake up the power structures a bit and remind them who they work for. I am disgusted regarding the total abdication of responsibility that our elected leaders are displaying and if it continues no amount of corporate money will be enough to get them reelected.
Ultimately politicians whether democratically elected or not are beholden to the population. Masses of people will eventually go into the streets and stir things up. We just haven't gotten to that point yet in America. Spain, Greece, Portugal, England I think paint a decent picture of what main street here in the states might look like pretty soon though.
My spirits were recently revived with the dance party at the Jefferson Memorial. I am happy that peaceful civil disobedience is still alive.
As negative as I can get reading the news, I have a deep conviction that America will pull through this period with a new sense of purpose and vitality. We just need to shake up the power structures a bit and remind them who they work for. I am disgusted regarding the total abdication of responsibility that our elected leaders are displaying and if it continues no amount of corporate money will be enough to get them reelected.
Last edited by doodle on Sun Jun 05, 2011 11:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.
All of humanity's problems stem from man's inability to sit quietly in a room alone. - Blaise Pascal
Re: Boycott China..
Didn't the electorate already send such a message in the form of the election of Barack Obama in 2008 with the campaign slogan of "Change"?doodle wrote: We just need to shake up the power structures a bit and remind them who they work for. I am disgusted regarding the total abdication of responsibility that our elected leaders are displaying and if it continues no amount of corporate money will be enough to get them reelected.
Rather than change, we got more of the same.
I will believe in the power of the people in this country to overcome the power of money when I see it. Until then, I will trust the politicans to do what is in their best interest, which in the current system is to follow the money.
I don't know if the current system is capable of churning out another Harry Truman or Dwight Eisenhower. These were probably the last Presidents we will see from either party who had a fundamentally skeptical eye toward the influence of big business on politics, and had the political courage to do what they believed was good for America, not just good for the moneyed interests within America.
As I said, though, I am ready to be pleasantly surprised.
Q: “Do you have funny shaped balloons?”
A: “Not unless round is funny.”
A: “Not unless round is funny.”
Re: Boycott China..
The United States has become a Banana Republic...a plutarchy. Unbridled adulation of free market economics has given us a country in which almost 80% of the wealth is controlled by 5% of the population. Unfortunately after the bank bailouts of 2008 the trend continues. In the Tampa Bay area where I live the top ten local companies CEOs pay increased markedly in 2010 relative to the previous two years while across the board middle class wages have fallen and teachers haven't seen a pay increase in more than 5 years.
Meanwhile certain politicians are saying that we need to decrease taxes on the wealthiest 2% presumedly so that they can buy another private jet to visit the sweat shops they have set up in China.
Ultimately this inequality will need to be redressed as it is very destabilizing.
When things get bad enough people will eventually turn off The Jersey Shore or Real Housewives and start demanding real change.
I am entirely disappointed in Obama and can only think that he is holding back on real change for the second term. He found out early that going against embedded power structures is a delicate process.
Meanwhile certain politicians are saying that we need to decrease taxes on the wealthiest 2% presumedly so that they can buy another private jet to visit the sweat shops they have set up in China.
Ultimately this inequality will need to be redressed as it is very destabilizing.
When things get bad enough people will eventually turn off The Jersey Shore or Real Housewives and start demanding real change.
I am entirely disappointed in Obama and can only think that he is holding back on real change for the second term. He found out early that going against embedded power structures is a delicate process.
Last edited by doodle on Mon Jun 06, 2011 12:11 am, edited 1 time in total.
All of humanity's problems stem from man's inability to sit quietly in a room alone. - Blaise Pascal
Re: Boycott China..
The whole issue of increasing concentrations of wealth and the destabilizing effects it can have on a society is a thorny issue with no real satisfactory answers.
I did a thread on this topic a while back and there was some good back and forth on the issue.
I really don't know what the answer is.
I did a thread on this topic a while back and there was some good back and forth on the issue.
I really don't know what the answer is.
Q: “Do you have funny shaped balloons?”
A: “Not unless round is funny.”
A: “Not unless round is funny.”
Re: Boycott China..
Why are we different?doodle wrote:
Our country will not suffer 10% plus employment for decades to come. I don't see America as a country that will muddle through this like Japan has done.
"All men's miseries derive from not being able to sit in a quiet room alone."
Pascal
Pascal
Re: Boycott China..
I would question it, too, if free trade actually existed in the U.S. But it doesn't. We have not had anything even closely resembling a free economy in the U.S. since before the New Deal. We have a mixed economy--an amalgamation of capitalism, socialism, and fascism/corporatism.doodle wrote: I am really beginning to question the wisdom of free trade and its benefits to our communities and citizens.
To blame America's ills even partially on supposed failings of the free market is like a person blaming his TV's manufacturer for the fact that his TV doesn't work after he opened it up with a screwdriver and attempted to "improve" it using a pair of pliers and a soldering iron. When one tinkers with something that is not meant to be tinkered with, one voids the warranty and can no longer blame the manufacturer if the results do not turn out as expected.
If someday I see a truly free society with a truly free market--one that is not saddled with layers upon layers of oppressive taxes, corporate bailouts by the government, countless regulations that favor big businesses by making it prohibitively expensive for startups and smaller companies to compete, fiat money and government-enforced fractional-reserve banking, etc.--and if that free society shows the same ailments as our heavily-regulated (i.e., not free) one, then I'll start to seriously contemplate the possibility that there may be something fundamentally wrong with the free market. We're not there yet; not by a long shot.
I consider the United States and its founding political principles to be the best yet devised by the mind of man, but I drive a Japanese car, wear clothes manufactured in third-world countries, and consume countless products made in China and all across the globe. I buy them because the equivalent American products (where they even exist) are typically either of lesser quality or, if of similar quality, are significantly more expensive.doodle wrote: I am curious what others on this board feel regarding this topic and whether anyone makes an attempt to consume American made products. I for one am willing to pay more for a product that is made in America knowing that it will keep one more of my neighbors employed and an American community intact.
I could be "patriotic" by buying an American car I don't really want or paying a higher price for an American product, but in a sense I would actually consider that a disservice to my nation. When American businesses can't compete with foreign competitors, it is often because they are forced to pay higher taxes, comply with more onerous regulations, and deal with more government-supported labor union demands than their foreign competitors are. If I deliberately make less efficient use of my capital by "buying American," I am in a sense supporting America's over-reaching government and parasitic labor unions.
If my purchase of cheaper and/or better-made foreign goods provides even a small amount of financial motivation for American "zombie" corporations on government life support to fundamentally reconsider the inefficient way they do business (which would probably involve a heavy dose of government lobbying by the corporation to effect change), then I suppose that indirectly, I am being a patriotic consumer.
Last edited by Tortoise on Mon Jun 06, 2011 12:50 am, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Boycott China..
All too often what you are buying though is not necessarily a better car...but the same t-shirt, shoes, furniture that costs 20% less because it was built by someone in China making 200 dollars a month....
Maybe we should lower Americans wages to 200 dollars a month so we can compete. Of course the CEO should continue to make millions every year.
The reality is that our demand for cheaper products is that we pay more for entitlements, jails, police forces, etc. as our communities are eviscerated and people turn to desperate measures.
We use the same logic with oil and gas where we spend trillions on war rather than reform our consumption habits or accept the true market price.
Maybe we should lower Americans wages to 200 dollars a month so we can compete. Of course the CEO should continue to make millions every year.
The reality is that our demand for cheaper products is that we pay more for entitlements, jails, police forces, etc. as our communities are eviscerated and people turn to desperate measures.
We use the same logic with oil and gas where we spend trillions on war rather than reform our consumption habits or accept the true market price.
Last edited by doodle on Mon Jun 06, 2011 7:05 am, edited 1 time in total.
All of humanity's problems stem from man's inability to sit quietly in a room alone. - Blaise Pascal
-
dualstow
- Executive Member
- Posts: 14292
- Joined: Wed Oct 27, 2010 10:18 am
- Location: synagogue of Satan
- Contact:
Re: Boycott China..
China doesn't play fair, and that is frustrating.
As for losing manufacturing, there's a good radio episode on that by Harry Browne. Wish I had the specific show date.
He was responding to an author lamenting, among other things, the fact that our manufacturing base is no longer domestic.
As for losing manufacturing, there's a good radio episode on that by Harry Browne. Wish I had the specific show date.
He was responding to an author lamenting, among other things, the fact that our manufacturing base is no longer domestic.
9pm EST Explosions in Iran (Isfahan) and Syria and Iraq. Not yet confirmed.
Re: Boycott China..
For my entire professional life, I've worked as a marketer both for my own start-ups as well as other companies. I've been directly involved in the advertising industry as well. I can tell you the idea of "advertisers telling us what to buy" is not compatible with reality at all.doodle wrote: Now, you might say that the manufacturers are just giving people what they want. They are reacting to the demands of the marketplace. Frankly, I think that is crap. People's wants and desires are shaped by a huge advertising industry that tells them what their kitchen should look like, or what clothes they must wear to be trendy. Advertising manufactures demand. In other words, we don't tell the companies what to produce, they tell us what we "need" and then sell it to us.
And so in America instead of investing our money in infrastructure, education, and science and technology we increasingly just send it overseas to buy more disposable junk that we will dump in a few years anyways. Meanwhile, the advertisers are working on what next years furniture, clothes, kitchens, cars, etc. should look like.
Do you live in a shack with a corrugated steel roof and use a campfire for heat or do you live in more comfortable accommodations? Do you wear a loin cloth or do you wear fancier clothes? Do you eat maize or do you eat tastier and more prepared meals? Everything above the most basic needs of human survival is a personal decision--one that you've made because of the innate desire for "more." As a marketer, I can bring out all the reasons why someone will want to buy my stuff, but I can't convince them to do something they don't already want to do. There's a huge difference.
Good marketers and advertisers know human psychology well. After the basic needs are met, we all want more--and it never stops until we make a conscious decision to be happy with the lifestyle we have. But to think marketers and advertisers implant that desire in us is erroneous.
I agree that consumption doesn't make a person happy. Maslow's hierarchy makes a good case for what does. Sometimes the irony is that one person's stability and security is another person's form of slavery.doodle wrote: I really believe that unbridled consumption and avarice for cheap material goods is a detriment to the United States. An unbridled free market might create more material wealth, but it doesn't lead to better communities and happier people. The dislocations that it causes in society run counter to the majority of humans desires for stability and security.
Re: Boycott China..
For the purposes of this discussion, let me set aside the concerns about how China treats the environment (because these concerns are legitimate and well-documented.) When thinking about trade with China, I ask myself the following sorts of questions.doodle wrote: I just finished watching a CNBC program that provided an interesting insight into the US economic relationship with China. I must say it was distressing to me to see so many Americans in our manufacturing sector put out of work by companies that have chosen to move overseas to take advantage of lower labor costs and less environmental regulation.
Why wouldn't I want to have as many trading partners as possible? What benefit is it to me to restrict myself from forming a trade relationship with over a billion people?
Should I be upset if I buy a product from California rather than one made in my home state? Am I richer or poorer because I am permitted to trade with an individual in California?
If unable to trade, my family would live at subsistence level (or worse.) We'd be better off if we could trade with those in our community. Better still if we could trade with those in another city. Free trade throughout the United States would make us even wealthier. Why would trading with foreigners then impoverish us?
Would a completely isolated United States be able to survive? I say yes, but would we be as wealthy as we are today?
Perhaps these questions have convincing answers that I haven't been exposed to before. On the whole, though, I think we're much better off being able to trade with foreign nations. The worst thing that China does to us is act as "enablers" for our excessive government debt. Isn't this really our fault rather than theirs?
Nah, the opposite's true. As a very simple example, the bank bailouts you mention don't even exist in a free market. As Tortoise pointed out, we haven't enjoyed anything like a free market in many decades. We're now one of many high-tax, high-regulation mixed economies.doodle wrote: Unbridled adulation of free market economics has given us a country in which almost 80% of the wealth is controlled by 5% of the population. Unfortunately after the bank bailouts of 2008 the trend continues.
Re: Boycott China..
Mr. Invisible hand himself Adam Smith even saw the necessity of government regulation especially with regards to the banking sector.
"To restrain private people, it may be said, from receiving in payment the promissory notes of a banker for any sum, whether great or small, when they themselves are willing to receive them ; or, to restrain a banker from issuing such notes, when all his neighbours are willing to accept of them, is a manifest violation of that natural liberty, which it is the proper business of law not to infringe, but to support.
Such regulations may, no doubt, be considered as in some respects a violation of natural liberty. But those exertions of the natural liberty of a few individuals, which might endanger the security of the whole society, are, and ought to be, restrained by the laws of all governments; of the most free, as well as of the most despotical. The obligation of building party walls, in order to prevent the communication of fire, is a violation of natural liberty, exactly of the same kind with the regulations of the banking trade which are here proposed."
I too have taken a big gulp from the free market kool aid jug. While on the surface the arguments seem to make sense, I am beginning to investigate and question all of the externalities that people tend to forget when focusing blindly on the aquisition of material wealth to the detriment of human relations and communities.
"To restrain private people, it may be said, from receiving in payment the promissory notes of a banker for any sum, whether great or small, when they themselves are willing to receive them ; or, to restrain a banker from issuing such notes, when all his neighbours are willing to accept of them, is a manifest violation of that natural liberty, which it is the proper business of law not to infringe, but to support.
Such regulations may, no doubt, be considered as in some respects a violation of natural liberty. But those exertions of the natural liberty of a few individuals, which might endanger the security of the whole society, are, and ought to be, restrained by the laws of all governments; of the most free, as well as of the most despotical. The obligation of building party walls, in order to prevent the communication of fire, is a violation of natural liberty, exactly of the same kind with the regulations of the banking trade which are here proposed."
I too have taken a big gulp from the free market kool aid jug. While on the surface the arguments seem to make sense, I am beginning to investigate and question all of the externalities that people tend to forget when focusing blindly on the aquisition of material wealth to the detriment of human relations and communities.
Last edited by doodle on Mon Jun 06, 2011 9:25 am, edited 1 time in total.
All of humanity's problems stem from man's inability to sit quietly in a room alone. - Blaise Pascal
Re: Boycott China..
The perversion of Adam Smith's message might be a place to start.... I for one haven't read the entire Wealth of Nations....only excerpts in college. Maybe its time we all pick it up so that we can stop misusing his words:
Below is quoted from Christian Science Monitor article:
Adam Smith published his “Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations”? in 1776. A revolutionary book, “Wealth”? did not aim to support the interests of any one class over another, but rather the overall well-being of an entire nation. Smith discovered, of course, “an invisible hand,”? an utterly unsought convergence whereby “the private interests and passions of men”? will lead to “that which is most agreeable to the interest of a whole society.”?
Through capitalistic modes of production and exchange, therefore, reasoned Smith, an inextinguishable social inequality might still be reconciled with broad human progress.
But today’s conservative defenders of Smith usually ignore, either deliberately or unwittingly, the full depth of his rather complex thought. A system of “perfect liberty,”? as Smith called it, could never be based upon any encouragements of needless consumption. Instead, he argued, the laws of the market, driven by competition and a consequent “self-regulation,”? strongly demanded a principled disdain for all vanity-driven consumption.
“Conspicuous consumption,”? a phrase that would be used more effectively by Thorstein Veblen at the start of the 20th century, could thus never be the proper motor of economic or social improvement.
To be sure, Adam Smith understood the dynamics of conspicuous consumption, but (and this part is widely disregarded) he also loathed them. For him, it was only reasonable that the market regulate both the price and quantity of goods according to the final arbiter of public demand. Yet, he continued, this market ought never to be manipulated by any avaricious interferers.
More precisely, Smith excoriated all who would artificially create or encourage contrived demand as mischievously vain meddlers of a “mean rapacity.”?
Today, of course, with engineered demand and hyper consumption as both permanent and allegedly desirable market features, we have lost all sight of Smith’s “natural liberty.”? As a result, we try, foolishly and interminably, to construct our economic recovery and vitality upon sand. Below the surface, we still fail to recognize, lurks a truly fundamental problem that is not economic, fiscal, or financial. Instead, as Adam Smith would have us understand, it is a plainly psychological or human dilemma.
Wall Street’s persisting fragility is largely a mirror image of Main Street’s insatiable drive toward hyper-consumption. This manipulated drive, so execrable to Adam Smith, has already prompted certain learned economists to warn repeatedly against saving too much. Upon reflection, could any advice be more ironic?
Below is quoted from Christian Science Monitor article:
Adam Smith published his “Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations”? in 1776. A revolutionary book, “Wealth”? did not aim to support the interests of any one class over another, but rather the overall well-being of an entire nation. Smith discovered, of course, “an invisible hand,”? an utterly unsought convergence whereby “the private interests and passions of men”? will lead to “that which is most agreeable to the interest of a whole society.”?
Through capitalistic modes of production and exchange, therefore, reasoned Smith, an inextinguishable social inequality might still be reconciled with broad human progress.
But today’s conservative defenders of Smith usually ignore, either deliberately or unwittingly, the full depth of his rather complex thought. A system of “perfect liberty,”? as Smith called it, could never be based upon any encouragements of needless consumption. Instead, he argued, the laws of the market, driven by competition and a consequent “self-regulation,”? strongly demanded a principled disdain for all vanity-driven consumption.
“Conspicuous consumption,”? a phrase that would be used more effectively by Thorstein Veblen at the start of the 20th century, could thus never be the proper motor of economic or social improvement.
To be sure, Adam Smith understood the dynamics of conspicuous consumption, but (and this part is widely disregarded) he also loathed them. For him, it was only reasonable that the market regulate both the price and quantity of goods according to the final arbiter of public demand. Yet, he continued, this market ought never to be manipulated by any avaricious interferers.
More precisely, Smith excoriated all who would artificially create or encourage contrived demand as mischievously vain meddlers of a “mean rapacity.”?
Today, of course, with engineered demand and hyper consumption as both permanent and allegedly desirable market features, we have lost all sight of Smith’s “natural liberty.”? As a result, we try, foolishly and interminably, to construct our economic recovery and vitality upon sand. Below the surface, we still fail to recognize, lurks a truly fundamental problem that is not economic, fiscal, or financial. Instead, as Adam Smith would have us understand, it is a plainly psychological or human dilemma.
Wall Street’s persisting fragility is largely a mirror image of Main Street’s insatiable drive toward hyper-consumption. This manipulated drive, so execrable to Adam Smith, has already prompted certain learned economists to warn repeatedly against saving too much. Upon reflection, could any advice be more ironic?
Last edited by doodle on Mon Jun 06, 2011 9:44 am, edited 1 time in total.
All of humanity's problems stem from man's inability to sit quietly in a room alone. - Blaise Pascal
Re: Boycott China..
Our stainless steel tea pot just broke. Apparently, the material around the mouth wasn't actually stainless steel and it rusted out.
I decided I wanted to buy a tea pot that would last for the rest of my life. So, I set out to buy one made in America or Germany. (Germany because, according to "Vince" the Sham-Wow guy... they make good stuff!)
Couldn't find one. They're all made in Thailand.
Some guy in China is shopping for a tea pot right about now thinking to himself, "WTF does a guy go, to buy a tea pot made in China anymore?" LOL.
I decided I wanted to buy a tea pot that would last for the rest of my life. So, I set out to buy one made in America or Germany. (Germany because, according to "Vince" the Sham-Wow guy... they make good stuff!)
Couldn't find one. They're all made in Thailand.
Some guy in China is shopping for a tea pot right about now thinking to himself, "WTF does a guy go, to buy a tea pot made in China anymore?" LOL.
Last edited by Coffee on Mon Jun 06, 2011 10:30 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"Now remember, when things look bad and it looks like you're not gonna make it, then you gotta get mean. I mean plumb, mad-dog mean. 'Cause if you lose your head and you give up then you neither live nor win. That's just the way it is. "
Re: Boycott China..
Next thing you know they'll stop making tea in China, too.
Q: “Do you have funny shaped balloons?”
A: “Not unless round is funny.”
A: “Not unless round is funny.”
Re: Boycott China..
doodle, I share your frustration with this culture of pushy, in-your-face marketing that attempts to drum up demand where none existed before. I do think it causes many people to consume more than they would have otherwise. Often needlessly and wastefully. If the values of simplicity and durability were more highly prized in our culture than conspicious consumption and social status, I think our society would more closely resemble the one that Adam Smith envisioned when he wrote Wealth of Nations.
But it's important not to blame the free market on the social ills we observe around us. Government regulation and intervention does not improve the situation. The reason is because government is not some abstract entity that can be considered as separate from the society it governs. The government's members are drawn from the very society it governs.
If the society is corrupt, the government will be corrupt, too. And if the society is virtuous, it will have little need of a government in the first place.
I wish I knew how to go about creating a virtuous society, but I don't. As Harry Browne wrote, however, our energy is most efficiently spent focused on that which we control most effectively: our own personal growth and happiness. Not false, empty happiness, in my opinion, but rather--if one is honest with oneself--the kind of lasting happiness one can achieve only through personal struggle, redemption, victory, and increased self-awareness. If people spent more time on these "selfish" pursuits than on allowing themselves to be distracted and led astray by base cultural forces, I have no doubt that we would be living in a more virtuous world.
But it's important not to blame the free market on the social ills we observe around us. Government regulation and intervention does not improve the situation. The reason is because government is not some abstract entity that can be considered as separate from the society it governs. The government's members are drawn from the very society it governs.
If the society is corrupt, the government will be corrupt, too. And if the society is virtuous, it will have little need of a government in the first place.
I wish I knew how to go about creating a virtuous society, but I don't. As Harry Browne wrote, however, our energy is most efficiently spent focused on that which we control most effectively: our own personal growth and happiness. Not false, empty happiness, in my opinion, but rather--if one is honest with oneself--the kind of lasting happiness one can achieve only through personal struggle, redemption, victory, and increased self-awareness. If people spent more time on these "selfish" pursuits than on allowing themselves to be distracted and led astray by base cultural forces, I have no doubt that we would be living in a more virtuous world.