Boycott a Global Bully
go here and sign the pledge
http://adbusters.org/campaigns/boycott_ame...erica/index.php

I don't know, Anne...nearly everything manufactured or produced by "American" companies comes from places like Taiwan, China, Pakistan, Hong Kong, Mexico, etc.

If you ask me, we should establish a law prohibiting American-based businesses from exporting their jobs overseas. The rule should be: if you're going to use the American populace as your marketplace, you damn well better give them employment too (and not to foreigners). This has been one of Pat Buchanan's most emphasized points.

I can not believe that your narrow minded point of view could bring you to the conclusion that “foreignersâ€�, as you stated, are staling American jobs. You are just another ignorant red-neck and I hate to admit it but our country is primarily composed of these miss-informed peoples who have a construed viewpoint of the world. All you know is what occurs in you’re your neck of the woods and really have no idea how the rest of the world lives. Have you ever visited a third world country?  Obviously for you to make the statement that you did that answer would have to be no.  Multi-national corporations ( primarily American companies found in third world countries) lets just take for example Nike, exploit their employees in the developing world. Plainly and simply. Those same people who you claim to be stealing American jobs are being paid 10 cents an hour so you can buy your $50 dollar sneakers. Now you tell me. It is right that the CEO of Nike can drive his Ferrari to and from work everyday while some poor child in a sweatshop in China is deprived from an education and the basic necessities of life so his stock can rise a quarter of a point? I am sorry to inform you, but the fact is that these American businesses are in fact exploiting the resources of the third world and it is not the other way around. We are using their land and labor, its not the other way around. I am disgusted with the western ideal of materialism. While we are worried about where our next car payment is going to come from, children working for an American multi-billion dollar corporation in Mexico are pondering whether or not they are going to have enough to purchase there next meal. It is intellectuality absurd that in a world of surplus, there is want.

very well said...

I don't think he was implying that foreigners are stealing American jobs.  Rahter, I think was condemning American companies for their exploitation of cheap foreign labor.  It's bad for the foreign and american worker alike, but its financially lucrative for the corporation.  Profit before people, etc.

His statement was said in a manner that was degrading  to the foreign worker. And besides, who ever could even phatom the possibilty of American corporations producing in America is just ignorant in the study of economics and politics. Capatalist markets are driven by competiton, which in return leads to lower prices. If American corporatins were to hire American workers, opposed to his or her Mexican peers,  price levels would increase drastically. This would  lead to the bankruptcy of American corporations as consumers would cease to purchase American produced goods and purchase Canadian etc.. produced goods as free trade does exist between these two countries. So in fact, giving Americans "American" jobs is the worst possible decison. Please, do not make a comment that is unfounded and ignorant.

It's only "the worst possible decision" if you equate what is best for the economy with what is best for the corporation, and then you still have to talk about whose economy.  Furthermore, you are confusing a critique of economic neocolonization with a critique of capitalism.  Secondly, you are forgetting that capitalism, in addition to competition, requires the surplus value of labor.  Can't work without it.  Foreign jobs, in addition to being cheap labor, are also an artificial way of mitigating the toll this requirement exacts upon the consumer, but cannot be maintained indefinitely.

Personally I think capitalism is deeply flawed, especially in its laissez faire variety.  Even Adam Smith admited to as much.  Do I have the solution?  No.  But that doesn't change the fact that economic neocolonization is bad for all involved.

It is the "worst possible decison" for the economy and the corporation equally. If we are talking about American companies producing in America, the American economy and the corporation will suffer. As I have explained before, the corporation will fall and as a result jobs are lost. Unemployment increases and thus government transfer payments will have to follow suite. The economy is then producing under its capacity and a recession is the result. We all kow what then happen is a recession. The Governemnt lowers taxes and increases tranfer payments. This  creates a deficit .  The bottom line is that producing consumer goods in America is impossible. Thats the fact of the matter, it will never happen. But then again this scenario is benefical to countries who export to our country as our de-valued dollar will persuaed them to increase their exports. Therofre benefiting foreign economies. Well, the surplus of labour theory is a Marxist concept. Not a capatalist one. It has absolutley no bearing on this argument. As Marx saw it, the true value of any commodity is derived by computing the laboor that was necessary to produce it (labour theory of value). He believed that because capitalists are not labourers they produce no value. Workers arw not compensated for the total value of the goods they produce, and what the capitalist witholds from the worker is surplus value. The surplus value is used to expand capital, a process conditioned by competition. Tha accumulation of capital generates increasing demands for labour. But at the same time, accumulation leads to the concentration of capital, which ultimatley places greater amounts of capital in fewer hands.  Ultimatley, the natural tendancy for capitalists to expand surplus value, or proftis, feeds the impoverishment of workers, creates under consumptoin, and results in surplus production. In Marx's view, surplus value is a waste of energy, because the amount of effort workers invest into generating wealth for individual capatalist could be used to benefit  society as a whole. I do not see how you can say that it" cann't work without it". It is an idea, a critique if you will on capatalism. It is not a process that captalism follows, but rather a thought on capatalism that can be debated and agreed or disagreed upon. Personally, I believe that many of Marxists views are prelevant in todays society. But thats besides the point. Secondly, you are forgetting that capitalism, in addition to competition, requires the surplus value of labor.

Of course Capatalism is flawed. Adam Smiths idea of influencing AD through government spending is flawed on many levles. I will not even begin to crtique this variety. The laissez faire concept is equally as bad. Suply Side economic theory is the best alternative in my view point for the "bad times" as it does not create a defict and influencing AD for the "good times" or inflationary periods. I will not get into the reasons now, but if anybody would like to know, I will be sure to respond.

let me guess.....
fresh off an MS in economics?   ;D

No.. I am 16 years old and just very interested in the subject. I read every book I can get my hand on regarding the subject. Whats an MS?

hey, I'm impressed!  You seem to be well informed as if you had chosen your career some years ago (usually doesn't happen like that till sometime around college), although your knowledge does seem to be at a sub-doctorate level of complexity (meaning you have much to learn yet, grasshopper!).  Your enthusiasm for the subject, however, led me to believe that you were more than BS.  MS was my conclusion, as these people generally act like experts although they are not yet.

party on!
8)

Thanx alot. I actually just graduated from high school, moving on to University next year. Yes I do have much to learn, but eager to learn it. Thnx for the words of encouragment!

Concepts such as capitalism, communism, buy and hold, inflation , deflation and their like are just that.  Metaphors for certain conditions that appear in certain places in time.  
Economists almost to a fault are always backing one horse or the other.
Many turn into nothing but opportunists.  Greenspan for example.  A follower of Ayn Rand and a complete goldbug.  He does a 180 and is now against laisse fair economics and is now the strawman leader for the bankers and their rush to greed.  The Federal Reserve ( a private stock corporation owned by a consortium of banks both domestic and foriegn) is a plucking station for everones output.  It is a joke.  The discount rate is for banks.  It is ~2%.  What does this reflect in your credit dard payment.  If you do not have pristine credit or need the money, the average credit card % is in excess of 20%.  How long are you going to be defrauded in this rich man's game?  Most people listen to the media that is owned by the corporations that are raiding the till that are corrupting the politicians.  It is a round robin of thievery and indebtedness that will not end until this oligarchy ends.  That usually means a dictatorship is looming.  For our own good, that is.  That is to head off the cries of "off with their heads" once the crimes are discovered.
What can we do?  Become more conscious of the scam.  Talk, enlighten others.  Ironic humor is worth ten thousand bullets.
A better economic idea to follow is:  Watch the energies.  Watch the flow and the direction of what is building.  Become an Energist not an Economist.

Whats the point in having moderators that never contribute to this forum?

It increases the level of employment!

Tcha.... I think the debate here is healthy enough to avoid any need of moderation so far.
I haven't contributed to it because I don't know enough about the issues. But I am learning, which I think is valuable,
I do feel that the issue of Global Bully is stretching it a bit far though. A judgement like that should only come after protracted, unnecessary intererference worldwide.
Maybe the stated motivations were awry, as they were in the UK, but we all know that politicians are more interested in what we think than what we know - always have been, but becoming more so! Polly-tricki-uns.
Best regards Bill.

(One of the many great advantages of "free trade"...)

Microsoft does exports US jobs to India

THERE'S MORE outsourcing afoot in the USA, with Microsoft set to lay off hundreds of staff, according to a report in the Mercury News today.

The newspaper claims that a customer support centre in Bangalore, India may well take over a lot of customer service and technical support work in three states, Texas, North Carolina and Washington.

Full article:

http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=10280

Its not that the Microsoft is exporting "US" jobs, whatever that is supposed to mean, to India. The fact of the matter is that India produces some of the worlds top computer enginers and programers. Microsoft is simply attempting to produce the best product availabe  and in order to do this, needs the most qualified people working for them. At the currnet moment, these people are found in India. For decades now Microsoft has hired Indian's to work in the companies most prominent positions. Creating a brain drain in India.

QUOTE

Its not that the Microsoft is exporting "US" jobs, whatever that is supposed to mean, to India.

"Whatever that is supposed to mean"? I guess I'll explain it to you - US jobs are jobs provided by American employers to American citizens. When an American employer believes it can cut costs by obtaining the same work from foreigners, then it fires the Americans and transports those jobs to the foreigners, regardless of where they live.

This is why everything we buy is manufactured abroad...unfortunately. We Americans should be self-sufficient and produce all our own goods. We have the resources to do so. It's just that the big companies are too miserly and refuse to pay Americans decent wages, so they pay foreign employees much less...it's a smart business move, but in my view, it is treason to one's nation.

I hope I cleared things up for you.

Btw, I disagree with you that India turns out the best IT employees - they are simply the ones that will work for less and undercut the American IT pro.

Actually it has nothing to do with cutting costs. Microsoft  scouts for Indian computer enginers and gets them U.S citizenship to live and work in the U.S. This  costs Microsoft more money than hiring one of our fellow Americans. I have done extensive reseach on this, and believe me, Indian computer enginers are far superior to their American counterparts. The reason for this is very simple. What happens in India is that one is assigned a University to go to based on their A level grades.(British system) Each of these Universities house a differing quality of student. In order to obtain entry into Indains technology school, you have to be in the countrys top 10 %. Basically, all of Indias top scholars attend this school. It is impossible for a mediocore American to compete with somebody who is far more intelletucally superior than they are.

It is economically impossible for  U.S corporations to survive without exporting U.S jobs. Unless of course you are willing to pay 300 for your average run of the mill tennis shoe. In a perfect world, we would not have to "export our jobs". You are right. U.S companies should only hire U.S citizens. They should stop infiltrating these 3 rd world countries and exploiting their workers. In a world driven by greed, such as our own, this will never happen.  

http://www.boycottliberalism.com

Boycott liberalism!

Just a Thought

You are justifying the status quo by an appeal to the impossibility of change in the present circumstance.  It is a fundamentally confused argument and has been repudiated in its many forms ad nauseum throughout the history of philosophy.  You can never justify what *ought* to be by an appeal to what *is*.  This, in fact has been such a common error that it has earned its own name - the ought vs. is fallacy.  Congratulations.

It is absurd to argue that deleterious economic practices are legitimate because human nature is fundamentally greedy.  The whole point of economic regulation is to restrict the abuses of self-interest.  What you're saying, although you are not aware of it, is that the situation is the other way around.  Self-interest dictates the form and nature of proper economic relations.  If you weren't so intent upon establishing yourself as an economic authority, and jumping prematurely on Doug's case, then you wouldn't have painted yourself into such an indefensible position.  Obviously you're smart, but lets be a little bit practical.