U.S. Corporations created out economy meltdown

[kitkat]

Years ago when corporations started moving their manufacturing to other countries for cheaper labor, I felt immediate concern for the future of Americans who eventually would be forced out of their job and I wondered why we were not taking steps then to prevent our current economic crisis. The reality is those corporations are not coming back here and if people do not create a brand new market of ideas that will work in a large population and at the same time improve the conditions of our environment that supports us, we are doomed.

 

It is time for science to put all of their years of research and what they have accomplished to the test since they are the experts on our resources and know what the limits of our global environment can support. Since a good portion of our taxes funds scientific research, they can certainly assign a group of scientists that can come up with ideas to put the population back to work that benefits the environment and can improve our food supply demands.

 

The fact is our government knew the consequences of what NAFTA and GATT would create for the U.S. economy. The housing bubble was no accident and it would have never happened with the strict requirements of obtaining a loan for a mortgage prior to 1994. It was government amendments that were signed to lower the requirement for people to get a home with the promise of a bailout that would be paid by the tax payors. Why would our government deliberately set us up for failure on so many contributing factors that they were ultimately behind orchestrating behind our backs?

[swansont]

It is time for science to put all of their years of research and what they have accomplished to the test since they are the experts on our resources and know what the limits of our global environment can support. Since a good portion of our taxes funds scientific research, they can certainly assign a group of scientists that can come up with ideas to put the population back to work that benefits the environment and can improve our food supply demands.

 

US government research is less than $150 billion (with more than half of that being DoD) out of $3.8 trillion in spending. Is 4% really "a good portion"?

http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/infbrief/nsf10327/

 

I'm not sure if one can categorize economics as science research or economists as scientists (though if pizza is a vegetable, why not?), but I don't think that ideas are in short supply. It's ideology and political strategy that is preventing ideas from being implemented. The GOP has suddenly become concerned about the debt, so they won't sign off on spending for infrastructure improvements that would actually improve commerce. The GOP claims the stimulus didn't work, by defining "work" in a way to suit their agenda. They have made it clear that they believe a poor economy works in their favor, and so do not appear to be in any rush to fix it; in the time they have held control of the house they have introduced zero jobs bills, and have not passed the White House's proposal. Further, big business seems to be doing alright with higher unemployment, and higher unemployment reduces wage pressure, so it's entirely possible that they are happy with the current situation.

 

Pointing the finger at science and scientists is misguided and just distracts from the real problems.

[iNow]

Years ago when corporations started moving their manufacturing to other countries for cheaper labor

That's also quite often where the customers are. The US is largely a consumption based economy, and consumption has been rather weak for a while now. A great number of customers exist in those other countries now, so it makes perfect sense to manufacture closer to them. The only reason one would manufacture in the US and then add the cost of international shipping on every single product they deliver would be some ideological desire to prioritize country over smart business (instead of just manufacturing locally and taking advantage of the cheaper assembly labor). You either do what maximizes profit and minimizes costs or you go out of business.

 

You're right. Many of the jobs are never coming back, but that is also a good thing. It frees up our populace to put their efforts into sectors that align with our other goals, like reduction in emissions, infrastructure improvements, healthcare, efficient production of food, securing clean drinking water, etc. It's not necessarily a bad thing that Americans are no longer sewing together children's dolls, assembling Transformers and toasters, and other similar tasks. We should be focusing our efforts on outputs that have significant return on investment, like solar panel manufacturing, proper education and schooling systems, and high efficiency vehicles and electrified mass transit infrastructure.

 

 

The fact is our government knew the consequences of what NAFTA and GATT would create for the U.S. economy.

You live on a planet that is globally connected. You are suggesting that the only reason we do commerce with other nations is because of NAFTA and GATT, and you are implying that this is somehow evil and that people who found benefit in those treaties were acting nefariously. This is naive, and quite frankly, wrong. It is clearly an opinion whether or not those treaties were good things or whether or not the people implementing them genuinely hoped to improve the world or were simply evil maniacal people. However, it is not opinion that those acts have helped millions of people both inside the US and outside.

 

IMO, the reason we suffer from the challenges you cite is because those acts were not accompanied and supplemented by proper internal activities like investment in our own country, in improving infrastructure, and improving energy sources and distribution.

 

It was government amendments that were signed to lower the requirement for people to get a home with the promise of a bailout that would be paid by the tax payors.

While I know you often hear this claim repeated, it's very clearly and remedially false. More here:

 

http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2011/07/why-wallison-is-wrong-about-the-genesis-of-the-u-s-housing-crisis/

 

 

I encourage folks (you included) not to put too much emphasis on the red herring which is "subprime." The problem was the housing bubble as a whole, including the bubbles in Europe. Contrary to the requirement of your argument above, the US government has no direct control of European markets or laws. Also, if you take just a few short minutes to review the flow of funds using data at the link below, it becomes quite clear that it was securitization inside that bubble that really led to the crisis.

 

http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2010/tables/10s1155.pdf

 

 

Why would our government deliberately set us up for failure on so many contributing factors that they were ultimately behind orchestrating behind our backs?

Why do people let their frustration overtake them and make such broad sweeping and frankly unsupportable assertions? Why has hyperbole become a more common discussion feature than data and evidence and reason?

Edited November 26, 2011 by iNow

[Phi for All]

Corporations, especially the biggest ones, are chiefly concerned with making a profit. The biggest will pay enormous bonuses to executives who can map out a way to make another half a percent (for a company like General Electric, half a percent more profit figures out to be over $72M). They will perform every legal contortion they can to make that profit.

 

Sometimes, breaking the rules is even profitable. Microsoft is famous for paying SEC fines that were in excess of $10,000 a day because they stood to make a great deal more. As long as fines were the only cost to them, they could crunch the numbers and still make money.

 

The key here is the regulations. If the fines aren't stiff enough, we need to raise them. If they allow a manufacturer to put too much pollution into the air or water, we need to write tougher regs. The corporation officers don't want to go to jail, so make sure jail time is part of the consequences. Stop their ability to soften the laws and regulations and you can stop the practices that hurt the country.

 

The corporations will claim they're being stifled, that the market is threatened, that what they do is best for everyone. They'll spend a carefully calculated amount of money trying to keep things in their favor, but won't exceed an amount that isn't profitable. If we stay tough, hold them to high standards and make them wipe their feet before they come tracking filth into THIS house, they will eventually realize the cost of scamming the system is too high.

 

The corporations aren't evil, they're just like the scorpion in the story. It's in their nature to ruthlessly pursue profit. Toughen the regulations, make it clear this is the framework in which they have to operate if they want US business, and they will adjust and turn their sights on other ways to squeeze another half a percent out. They won't leave as long as there is profit to be made.

 

Science needs to be funded by the public to stand as a benchmark for reality, and to discover new means of utilizing a work force that has lost it's former trades. Since we already have twice the military budget of any other nation on earth, we could afford to divert just 10% towards scientific research and still have plenty of security for the country. If we stopped the Bush tax cuts and ended our costly wars we could further improve research and pioneer work that the US needs to prosper.

 

And while we're at it, let's stomp on the idea of privatizing everything and start funding public education again. I feel that's a priority that has too long been neglected and one that will haunt us for a generation or more. Public schools work if you take your foot off their neck.

[kitkat]

Corporations, especially the biggest ones, are chiefly concerned with making a profit. The biggest will pay enormous bonuses to executives who can map out a way to make another half a percent (for a company like General Electric, half a percent more profit figures out to be over $72M). They will perform every legal contortion they can to make that profit.

 

Sometimes, breaking the rules is even profitable. Microsoft is famous for paying SEC fines that were in excess of $10,000 a day because they stood to make a great deal more. As long as fines were the only cost to them, they could crunch the numbers and still make money.

 

The key here is the regulations. If the fines aren't stiff enough, we need to raise them. If they allow a manufacturer to put too much pollution into the air or water, we need to write tougher regs. The corporation officers don't want to go to jail, so make sure jail time is part of the consequences. Stop their ability to soften the laws and regulations and you can stop the practices that hurt the country.

 

The corporations will claim they're being stifled, that the market is threatened, that what they do is best for everyone. They'll spend a carefully calculated amount of money trying to keep things in their favor, but won't exceed an amount that isn't profitable. If we stay tough, hold them to high standards and make them wipe their feet before they come tracking filth into THIS house, they will eventually realize the cost of scamming the system is too high.

 

The corporations aren't evil, they're just like the scorpion in the story. It's in their nature to ruthlessly pursue profit. Toughen the regulations, make it clear this is the framework in which they have to operate if they want US business, and they will adjust and turn their sights on other ways to squeeze another half a percent out. They won't leave as long as there is profit to be made.

 

Science needs to be funded by the public to stand as a benchmark for reality, and to discover new means of utilizing a work force that has lost it's former trades. Since we already have twice the military budget of any other nation on earth, we could afford to divert just 10% towards scientific research and still have plenty of security for the country. If we stopped the Bush tax cuts and ended our costly wars we could further improve research and pioneer work that the US needs to prosper.

 

And while we're at it, let's stomp on the idea of privatizing everything and start funding public education again. I feel that's a priority that has too long been neglected and one that will haunt us for a generation or more. Public schools work if you take your foot off their neck.

 

I agree with your post but one question: To toughen the regulations, how and who is actually in charge of making this a reality into law? Your comment that science needs to be funded by the public is being funded by the public in our taxes paid to the Depts of Government that delegate funding to science. I thought we already funded public education too and by increasing it we must also address the quality of education first.

[Phi for All]

I agree with your post but one question: To toughen the regulations, how and who is actually in charge of making this a reality into law?

Ultimately, it's Congress that votes on laws, but the public votes the members into office. If we let the politicians know why we are voting for them, and that their term is dependent on how they represent our wishes, the public can make the difference.

 

Your comment that science needs to be funded by the public is being funded by the public in our taxes paid to the Depts of Government that delegate funding to science.

But not nearly enough. Scientific research, free from special interest biases, is something we can trust to give us legitimate answers to our problems, rather than deceptive legislation that favors certain businesses.

 

I thought we already funded public education too and by increasing it we must also address the quality of education first.

The quality of public education has been systematically eroded by special interests that want it privatized for profit. Those who stand to profit want to make it look bad and then swoop in with "professional" help. No Child Left Behind was supposed to address the quality but is clearly hamstringing educators by forcing them to spend valuable time studying for rote memorization assessment tests (and you can buy software from President Bush's brother Neil to help your school pass those tests).

 

We need to scrap the poor methodology and look to other countries that have successful public education for guidance. The wealthiest people, the ones who are most actively orchestrating who gets elected to public office, are shooting down anything that spends tax dollars on programs that don't directly benefit them. They are showing a disgraceful lack of long-range planning. If we consider ourselves the greatest country and want to stay that way, why are we only ranked average on education internationally?

[kitkat]

Ultimately, it's Congress that votes on laws, but the public votes the members into office. If we let the politicians know why we are voting for them, and that their term is dependent on how they represent our wishes, the public can make the difference.

 

 

But not nearly enough. Scientific research, free from special interest biases, is something we can trust to give us legitimate answers to our problems, rather than deceptive legislation that favors certain businesses.

 

 

The quality of public education has been systematically eroded by special interests that want it privatized for profit. Those who stand to profit want to make it look bad and then swoop in with "professional" help. No Child Left Behind was supposed to address the quality but is clearly hamstringing educators by forcing them to spend valuable time studying for rote memorization assessment tests (and you can buy software from President Bush's brother Neil to help your school pass those tests).

 

We need to scrap the poor methodology and look to other countries that have successful public education for guidance. The wealthiest people, the ones who are most actively orchestrating who gets elected to public office, are shooting down anything that spends tax dollars on programs that don't directly benefit them. They are showing a disgraceful lack of long-range planning. If we consider ourselves the greatest country and want to stay that way, why are we only ranked average on education internationally?

 

I agree with you but the problem with voting these individuals in Congress is that there is no accountability for what they say and what they will actually do once they are elected. It appears they are masters at deception and brainwashing the masses to believe what they want them to believe is the truth. Integrity is not an admired trait anymore, it is the complete opposite of its meaning that supports this popular saying, "Presentation is preferred over content" which describes our political candidates.

 

What I am trying to convey here is voting no longer works anymore with the criteria it takes for any individual to run as a candidate. I really do not need to explain to you what kind of person that must compete with lesser or equal evils in their lifetime to get to the point of being a candidate, I am sure you know what I am talking about here. They are all of the same mentality that crave power and prestige but get corrupted along the way in order to achieve it. For voting to be effective, integrity and accountability for what they stand for, promise, and most importantly prove this in their actions should be required of all elected candidates. Otherwise, why have a voting system that is completely ineffective for the reason why it was created in the first place?

 

Our educational system is negligent in providing the educational standards compared to other countries and people should be asking why this was not corrected at the same time as the Free Trades Agreement and GATT was signed since there is no way our existing educational system could complete in a global economy market. When I brought up the subject to friends of my concern for the jobs leaving the country, some commented that our leadsers envisioned the U.S. as being the educational hub for the world with us leading all new technology in the future.

 

They ignored one important criteria for this vision in that no one addressed the problems in our educational system and this is unacceptable to me and it should be of primary concern to the public. The tax payors do fund alot of money that is suppose to go to science so if science is not getting it, there is a another big problem that should be addressed as well.

[A Tripolation]

It's not necessarily a bad thing that Americans are no longer sewing together children's dolls, assembling Transformers and toasters, and other similar tasks. We should be focusing our efforts on outputs that have significant return on investment, like solar panel manufacturing, proper education and schooling systems, and high efficiency vehicles and electrified mass transit infrastructure.

 

QFT. While we do need to keep food/energy production local to America, I think we ought to be focusing on creating more technologically advanced sectors of business. Most people do not see this, however. They just talk about the loss of jobs, which is bad, sure, but they do not talk about ways to create jobs for the FUTURE world. A world that will most decidedly be governed by computers and renewable energy.