Clearly

http://www.detnews.com/article/20090826/AUTO01/908260371/1148/Bankrupt-suppliers-seek-exec-bonuses


I love this country.

8/27/2009 3:27:23 PM

Are you arguing for more government regulation in this process?

8/27/2009 3:36:36 PM

So? A privately owned company feels the need to compensate the personnel they expect to be most likely to lead them into recovery. So long as the owners or shareholders approve, as well as the court (since they're seeking bankruptcy protection) it isn't anyone else's business.

Move on.

UAW can suck it. They're at least half of the problem with the American-branded auto industry.

8/27/2009 3:54:27 PM

It definitely shows the inequality that capitalism will always create



but at the same time I don't really want the government telling everyone how much they can make.

8/27/2009 4:01:04 PM

the American auto industry needs some competent leadership. even with cash for clunkers they are still getting their asses handed to them.

8/27/2009 4:02:22 PM

Let's not be retarded here. This isn't limited to the auto industry, execs getting huge bonuses with companies going bankrupt cuts across all industries.

8/27/2009 4:11:58 PM

Which political party in the United States would you believe to be AGAINST "big bonuses" for corporate executives? Democrats or Republicans?

8/27/2009 4:15:34 PM

Quote :

"It definitely shows the inequality that capitalism will always create"

This gets brought up a lot, but inequality is a fact of human existence, not of capitalism. No major society has existed in the history of the world where there was not a small group with power who possessed exponentially more than the have-nots.

However, the have-nots in capitalist nations have more than the have-nots of any other economic system and sometimes nearly as much as some of the haves.

This income inequality boogey-man was played out long ago.

8/27/2009 4:16:37 PM

Quote :

"However, the have-nots in capitalist nations have more than the have-nots of any other economic system and sometimes nearly as much as some of the haves. This income inequality boogey-man was played out long ago."

Is that why the richest 1% have more wealth than the bottom 90%? I wouldn't call such a top heavy distribution of wealth a "fact of human existence."

8/27/2009 4:21:08 PM

8/27/2009 4:30:02 PM

^ FTMFW

8/27/2009 4:32:26 PM

Quote :

"A privately owned company feels the need to compensate the personnel they expect to be most likely to lead them into recovery. "

Oh yeah, it's the old, they got us into this mess, they'll know how to get us out argument, right?

These guys did what capitalist pigs have been doing for years

Quote :

"The company was founded in 1917. It first sold shares to the public in 1994 and expanded through a string of 18 major acquisitions since then. But the growth left Lear carrying a heavy debt burden and exposed to the slump in demand for the big SUVs and trucks that had represented a large share of its business."

IPOd, used the proceeds to buy up the competition, and the execs were most likely bonus'd on the closings of these acquisitions, then they are asking for more pay after letting go thousands of employees due to their fuck ups and lack of planning.

As a bondholder, you can recover 30% of your loss and give the execs the bonus money they want, or you can drag the bankruptcy through court and risk the remaining 30% over some throwaway money to the execs. What will you do?

8/27/2009 4:44:20 PM

Quote :

"However, the have-nots in capitalist nations have more than the have-nots of any other economic system and sometimes nearly as much as some of the haves. "

This is true, and I am thankful for that (growing up comparatively rich).

but

I think it should be noted that in this day of globalization, capitalism extends well beyond the borders of capitalist nations. Are the have-nots in foreign nations you mentioned working in a nike sweatshop? Is their former farmland being converted to a Dole fruit plantation?


obviously you can't blame all of the world's poor and oppressed on capitalism, but it plays its part

8/27/2009 4:46:46 PM

Quote :

"I wouldn't call such a top heavy distribution of wealth a "fact of human existence.""

No? Can you point to a society in world history that isn't indicative of this?

The ruins of Rome, Greece, and Egypt are monuments to the collection of wealth in the hands of a powerful few. Feudal Europe and Japan were systems which not only legally but practically morally encoded stations in life which could not be escaped. Only in recent years has caste begun to lose it's grip on Indian society. Until the recent liberalization of markets in China, ranking members of the Communist Party possessed wealth and power beyond the imagination of the average Chinese peasant. The difference is that Capitalism does not treat the worker as property of the state as does practically every other system known to man, including Marxism in all of its practiced forms.

The fact that the number one health problem in the United States is over-consumption is indicative in and of itself of the increase in the standard of living Capitalism brings to even the lowest of classes. Whether or not you find this to be a good thing holistically can be argued, but the accusations of oppression of the working class ring hollow in light of 20th century history.

Quote :

"Oh yeah, it's the old, they got us into this mess, they'll know how to get us out argument, right?"

No, it is the old, "As someone who is neither a stock holder, creditor, or assigned jurist, it is none of my business."

Go peddle your class envy somewhere else. Quite frankly, the agitation of the lower classes everywhere has led to acts of brutality which far surpass those of the "evil capitalist"

8/27/2009 5:24:56 PM

Quote :

"The fact that the number one health problem in the United States is over-consumption is indicative in and of itself of the increase in the standard of living Capitalism brings to even the lowest of classes"

I don't think this is a fair comparison. A large portion of the working class that supports American capitalism doesn't live in America. Our manufacturing and resource aquisition got moved offshore so that capitalism could more easily oppress those workers (and in turn make a bigger profit).

Quote :

"Quite frankly, the agitation of the lower classes everywhere has led to acts of brutality which far surpass those of the "evil capitalist" "

Yes angry poor people have murdered people before. No one here is endorsing violence against another human. But when I think about sweatshops, children miners, and even slavery, I mean, thats pretty brutal too.

Quote :

"No? Can you point to a society in world history that isn't indicative of this? "

IMO, thats why we need to rethink our shit. Im peddling anarchy







[Edited on August 27, 2009 at 6:17 PM. Reason : its utopian, i know]

8/27/2009 6:14:04 PM

Quote :

"No, it is the old, "As someone who is neither a stock holder, creditor, or assigned jurist, it is none of my business." "

Yeah, how capitalist pigs are behaving really isn't anything of my concern. Visteon is a public company, btw.

Quote :

""We still do intend to ask the court for authority to pay our leaders some incentive. It has not been determined when or if it will be different," Visteon spokesman Jim Fisher said, adding the actual amount awarded would be far less than $80 million because of the company's performance. Sontchi has not yet ruled on Visteon's request to cancel health and life insurance benefits to nearly 8,000 retirees and their dependents, and future retirees -- a move that would save $31 million a year. "

That's pretty cool right, cut benefits for 8000, saving 31 million so you can pay out 80 million in bonuses.

Let's be honest here, debt restructuring isn't a difficult task. You tell the bondholders they are getting a hair cut, you sell some under performing assets, you cut the highest paid (often the ones that have been around the longest) from your staff, and you try again. Is that worth a bonus? How about all the bonuses you received running it into the shitter, where is the clawback?

Quote :

"Go peddle your class envy somewhere else. Quite frankly, the agitation of the lower classes everywhere has led to acts of brutality which far surpass those of the "evil capitalist""

It isn't class envy one bit. I don't hate rich people. I hate rich people who fuck up and stay rich because of the power they bought stepping on the middle class along the way.

[Edited on August 27, 2009 at 6:25 PM. Reason : .]

8/27/2009 6:23:46 PM

Quote :

"However, the have-nots in capitalist first world industrialized nations have more than the have-nots of any other economic 3rd world agrarian system and sometimes nearly as much as some of the haves. This income inequality boogey-man was played out long ago. "

fixed it for you

[Edited on August 27, 2009 at 7:20 PM. Reason : ]

8/27/2009 7:19:34 PM

Quote :

"A large portion of the working class that supports American capitalism doesn't live in America. Our manufacturing and resource aquisition got moved offshore so that capitalism could more easily oppress those workers (and in turn make a bigger profit)."

Yeah, we sure are screwing those poor Chinese and Indian bastards over:

Quote :

"But when I think about sweatshops, children miners, and even slavery, I mean, thats pretty brutal too."

I agree wholeheartedly. Slavery is morally reprehensible in all of it's forms and I am opposed to worker exploitation. I support the free unionization of workers to demand better working conditions and the acts of consumers such as you and I to educate ourselves and the public about working conditions around the world. What I am opposed to is the idea that the grinding poverty and hopelessness found in most every command economy is an acceptable solution.

Quote :

"Im peddling anarchy"

That is as free as a market can get.

Quote :

"Visteon is a public company, btw."

Yes. Yes it is. It is a publicly traded company owned by private stock-holders who have a vote in how the company is run. This does not involve the government beyond the aforementioned Bankruptcy court, nor does it involve you or I as non-stock holders. Being "public" does not mean that every swinging Johnson with a half-baked scheme for economic egalitarianism has a say in what happens to that company.


^ you still make my point that open markets and free trade are the pathways to prosperity.

8/27/2009 9:23:50 PM

Quote :

"Yes. Yes it is. It is a publicly traded company owned by private stock-holders who have a vote in how the company is run."

They had a vote. It isn't like they can sell their stock or cash in their bonds as the company can't pay.

Like I said, all they can do is just eat the "old boy club" fee and get back what little they can.

Quote :

"This does not involve the government beyond the aforementioned Bankruptcy court, nor does it involve you or I as non-stock holders."

Well holy fuck, I had no idea I had to be a stockholder before I could make a thread on the wolf web. What was I thinking

Quote :

"Being "public" does not mean that every swinging Johnson with a half-baked scheme for economic egalitarianism has a say in what happens to that company"

I wasn't implying that. I was pointing out how that company in particular was traded on a stock exchange. It isn't like this is SAS or something.

Quote :

"Yeah, we sure are screwing those poor Chinese and Indian bastards over:"

Nice, so China is at about 5% and India at 2.5% and they will experience exponential growth? What's the model, rapacious US consumption of cheap Chinese goods? Does the consider the Renminbi being held artificially low forever? What about the dollar getting continually whacked, what will that do for Chinese growth?

[Edited on August 27, 2009 at 10:12 PM. Reason : .]

8/27/2009 10:09:14 PM

Quote :

"I was pointing out how that company in particular was traded on a stock exchange."

And I was pointing out that this fact has absolutely no bearing on what happens here.

Quote :

"What's the model, rapacious US consumption of cheap Chinese goods? Does the consider the Renminbi being held artificially low forever? What about the dollar getting continually whacked, what will that do for Chinese growth?"

Here is a shocker, consumption in the emerging markets around the world will continue to accelerate even as American consumption drops off. The average Chinese citizen saves between 30 and 40% of their disposable income (http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/bizchina/2009-01/07/content_7375620.htm), plenty of room for consumption there.

We're not the only people in the world who purchase more when we can afford it.

8/27/2009 10:23:07 PM

Quote :

"And I was pointing out that this fact has absolutely no bearing on what happens here."

Might as well just lock every thread discussing corporations unless we happen to work for them or own stock in them, right?

Quote :

"Here is a shocker, consumption in the emerging markets around the world will continue to accelerate even as American consumption drops off."

Really, even if they are being kicked out of their plants and sent back to their rice fields they'll have the same income level with which to accelerate their consumption?

8/27/2009 10:27:36 PM

Nah, none of the threads here have much of any bearing on anything that happens anyway. If it makes you feel better to bitch, do what you've got to do to get your rocks off.

But yes, in a global downturn a net exporter like China will take a hit, but they're also expanding their ties with resource rich nations around the world, strengthening their ties with South America and Africa. Their economy was already close to overheating during the last decade, so this correction is expected. I'm pretty confident, however, that they're not going to descend back into mass peasantry.

Either way, as a whole, the Chinese are better today than they were under strict Communism and there is no reason to believe that trend won't continue, even if it does so at a reduced pace.

8/27/2009 10:35:56 PM

Haha, I always love these threads.

Some folk would really like to advocate socialism, but they don't got the stones.

So they just complain that capitalism isn't perfect and leave open the implication that some other unmentioned system of economic organization is a preferable alternative.

[Edited on August 27, 2009 at 11:20 PM. Reason : ``]

8/27/2009 11:09:34 PM

^anarchy has already been mentioned


It turns out this thread has been more thoughtful than the classic capitalism/socialism dichotomy

[Edited on August 28, 2009 at 9:42 AM. Reason : *]

8/28/2009 9:41:56 AM

Haha I was mostly talking about the OP, who i doubt is an anarchist.

But, anarchy is not really an "alternative" to capitalism. Anarchy simply means the absence of government. That is an alternative *political* system (how we distribute political power), not an alternative *economic* system (how we distribute economic resources).

The two are certainly related, but they are separable. If you google around a little bit, you will find folks like David Friedman that advocate "anarcho-capitalism", which is essentially advocating the absence of government (anarchy) and the distribution of economic resources through markets (capitalism).

8/28/2009 10:08:34 AM

Quote :

"So they just complain that capitalism isn't perfect and leave open the implication that some other unmentioned system of economic organization is a preferable alternative."

Nope. Capitalism is imperfect, but that admission doesn't imply I'm in favor of some other system. It implies I'm in favor of working towards a more perfect capitalism.

8/28/2009 10:25:25 AM

Capitalism at it is best?

8/28/2009 11:08:42 AM

Quote :

"But yes, in a global downturn a net exporter like China will take a hit, but they're also expanding their ties with resource rich nations around the world, strengthening their ties with South America and Africa. Their economy was already close to overheating during the last decade, so this correction is expected. I'm pretty confident, however, that they're not going to descend back into mass peasantry. "

http://www.zerohedge.com/article/ongoing-chinese-annexation-us-consumer

Quote :

"So the conclusion is that it always has and always will be about the US consumer. And any concerns that China may stop purchasing US securities are, unfortunately, groundless - China can ill afford to push the US middle class into a greater savings mode, and thus will cooperate as much as it can with the Federal Reserve in keeping both mortgages (for the illusory net wealth effect) and interest rates as low as possible for as long as it can. However, this being simply another fiat-funded bubble, and due to its Ponzi nature, a much more vicious one, the second this symbiosis ends for whatever unforeseen reason, the impact on China, and by implication on the US, will reverberate throughout monetary and fiscal policies and likely result in civil unrest both in the US and China, once Walmart can no longer provide cheap garbage to satisfy the American demand for constant credit-financed unneeded products, and once the China GDP illusion of minimum 8% growth is popped, resulting in an end to the Communist-Capitalist hybrid experiment."

And we wonder why the Fed is so ardent about keeping what they have behind closed doors secret.

8/28/2009 11:41:48 AM

If you are actually interested in perfecting capitalism, let's think about some ways to improve on the situation you mentioned.

Capitalism is all about using markets to facilitate voluntary exchanges that benefit all parties involved (directing people's self-interest to the betterment of everyone like an invisible hand).

Here, you seem to be implying that the Execs are not acting in the best interests of the share holders or society at large. The fact that they are acting in their self-interest is not surprising, but the fact that might come at the expense of their employer and others is distressing.

This is really a classic principal-agent problem that all companies must figure out how to face in one form or other (you can't watch your employees all the time, how do you figure how to get them to do a good job without shirking). The beauty of capitalism is that companies that are not able to overcome this problem go under. This *typically* provides more than enough incentive for most companies to figure things out.

So how do you think capitalism is failing here? This is an important question if we want to fix the system. There must be something that leads these execs to think that they won't be punished for their bad behavior. Maybe something unique to these firms. Maybe something or someone that will "bail them out" if their decisions go sour? But what it could it be!? What's mucking up the system????

[Edited on August 28, 2009 at 1:07 PM. Reason : ``]

8/28/2009 12:42:48 PM

Quote :

"any concerns that China may stop purchasing US securities are, unfortunately, groundless"

Looks like it is already happening:

Let's look at the numbers. China's holdings of U.S. Treasuries rose to $801.5 billion in May, an increase of 5 percent from $763.5 billion in April. Call it $40 billion a month. And let's imagine the Chinese do that every month through this fiscal year. That would be a credit line to the U.S. government of $480 billion. Given that the total deficit is forecast to be about $2 trillion, that means the Chinese may finance less than a quarter of -total federal-government borrowing—whereas a few years ago they were financing virtually the whole deficit. http://www.newsweek.com/id/212143 That article is essentially a counter-point to your article and they both make good points. So while they may continue purchasing, it doesn't appear that it will be at the rate required to finance our current spending.

"Tyler Durden" article makes some good points, but it seems to be backward rather than forward looking. There is no doubt that Chinese growth has been spurred by US consumption, but with a savings rate of nearly 50% (of discretionary income), they've got the ability to grow from within. I do not suspect that the Chinese who have returned home during this recession to be content to remain home and fester in poverty. The shift from the relationship they have with the United States will take time, but it will occur. But he also shows his bias in this sentence, "once Walmart can no longer provide cheap garbage to satisfy the American demand for constant credit-financed unneeded products". Clearly here is a man who knows what Americans need and should have.

China could, however, return to the communist system. This would assure their economic doom but that would only be a confirmation of my assertion that communism leads to economic death.

Quote :

"And we wonder why the Fed is so ardent about keeping what they have behind closed doors secret."

The Federal Reserve is possibly the biggest single cause of our current situation. It is practically their policy to distort the market and prohibit equilibrium seeking forces from acting.

8/28/2009 1:42:31 PM

Quote :

"Looks like it is already happening:"

You used evidence that China is still purchasing our debt as evidence they aren't???

You're own link points out the same catch 22 that ZeroHedge does, namely

Quote :

"The trouble is that the Chinese clearly feel they have enough U.S. government bonds. Their great anxiety is that the Obama administration's very lax fiscal policy, plus the Federal Reserve's policy of quantitative easing (in layman's terms, printing money), are going to cause one or both of two things to happen: the price of U.S. bonds could fall and/or the purchasing power of the dollar could fall. Either way the Chinese lose."

Quote :

"it doesn't appear that it will be at the rate required to finance our current spending."

The ZH article didn't imply or state that the Chinese had to gobble up every last bit of our debt. That's what our Fed is for.

Quote :

"There is no doubt that Chinese growth has been spurred by US consumption, but with a savings rate of nearly 50% (of discretionary income), they've got the ability to grow from within."

50% of not a whole lot is still just not a whole lot.

Quote :

"I do not suspect that the Chinese who have returned home during this recession to be content to remain home and fester in poverty."

What will they do? Demand jobs in factories that have since closed because Americans cut back their consumerism ways?

Quote :

"China could, however, return to the communist system. This would assure their economic doom but that would only be a confirmation of my assertion that communism leads to economic death."

Don't kid yourself, China is still a hodgepodge of a managed economy and they've been doing a decent job of it, but they'll hit some big bumps in the road in due time. For instance, the 40% GDP stimulus they enacted poured right into their stock market. They also play games where they say, alright, 8% GDP growth this year, then immediately use accounting gimmicks to make it so (like when a product is shipped to a store, not actually purchased, it counts towards the GDP) to paint the tape however they need.

8/28/2009 3:37:38 PM

Quote :

"You used evidence that China is still purchasing our debt as evidence they aren't???"

Good catch, I worded that poorly. What I was pointing to was the fact that China isn't interested in financing the same levels of debt that we are currently producing. They're purchasing the same in strict dollar amounts, but not as a percentage of our total debt. Yes the Fed is there to make up for that gap, but the only way they have managed to do it was through "quantitative easing" which is nothing more than printing money and stoking inflationary pressures.

Quote :

"Demand jobs in factories that have since closed because Americans cut back their consumerism ways?"

Clearly this is the case since no country, in the history of the world, has managed to advance itself economically except on the backs of greedy American consumers desperate for the next Asian produced trinket.

Truthfully, I don't know what exactly will happen. Growth will undeniably slow but the falling prices of capital goods and labor will reach a point where it will be profitable to produce for the Chinese consumer. China is not only in a bilateral relationship with the United States. Most of the factory owners in China were from other Asian nations and had the resources to start operations in China. An entire generation has been exposed to the idea of luxury, consumer goods, and a higher standard of living. They will be around to start working and buying again when this happens.

If this weren't the case, the first economic downturn in the history of the world would have been followed by an ever worsening spiral downwards.

Quote :

"Don't kid yourself, China is still a hodgepodge of a managed economy"

It is, without doubt. But it was by opening itself up to private ownership that the economic progress of late took place.


But tying back into your original post . . . why does any of this prove that Capitalism is inherently evil or wrong?

8/28/2009 4:59:18 PM

Quote :

"But tying back into your original post . . . why does any of this prove that Capitalism is inherently evil or wrong?"

My original post wasn't an assertion that Capitalism is inherently evil.

Quote :

"Clearly this is the case since no country, in the history of the world, has managed to advance itself economically except on the backs of greedy American consumers desperate for the next Asian produced trinket. "

It only took us, what, a couple hundred years to form a real solid middle class? I don't think ZH's commentary was about the long long term outlook. Some day, China will continue to form it's on industries and begin to be more economically self sustaining. It's going to be awhile.

8/28/2009 8:54:10 PM

Yeah, but that was pre-technological revolution. China has access to tools that were unimaginable at the time of the industrial revolution.

Quote :

"My original post wasn't an assertion that Capitalism is inherently evil."

forgive me if I interpreted it in light of later posts:

Quote :

"These guys did what capitalist pigs have been doing for years"

8/29/2009 12:30:17 AM

Fail Boat must be trolling. He claims to be interested in "perfecting" the capitalist system, but then refuses to engage in explaining how the capitalist system failed in story he mentioned in the OP.

8/29/2009 1:04:56 AM

Quote :

"Fail Boat must be trolling. He claims to be interested in "perfecting" the capitalist system, but then refuses to engage in explaining how the capitalist system failed in story he mentioned in the OP."

Sorry, I saw your post and meant to reply earlier, but some friends of ours dropped off the worlds worst behaved 90lb lab for the weekend and within 15 seconds of being off the leash he used our koi pond for a pool. So, in between trying to watch CSC517 lectures and constructing barricades to try to keep his stubborn ass out I was getting a post in here or there.

I won't promise I'll get back to it though because I'm like the majority here, it's much easier to just whine about something you don't like than to actually have a discussion about possible alternatives.

8/29/2009 6:55:52 AM

http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2009/08/is-china-japan-circa-1989.html

8/29/2009 7:41:41 AM

Quote :

"obviously you can't blame all of the world's poor and oppressed on capitalism, but it plays its part"

If God reached down and eliminated the whole of the first world, people and all, then the third world's poor and oppressed would still be poor and oppressed. As such, no, our "capitalism" would have been playing no part whatsoever.

8/30/2009 9:24:58 PM

thats obviously provable



How about this:

If god removed the Third World and its cheap resources, the first world would no longer be rich


or wait I have an even better one:

If the first world demanded equal working conditions and environmentally sustainable practices in Third world countries, the first world would no longer be rich



From where Im standing capitalism hinges on the oppression of the Third World

[Edited on August 31, 2009 at 8:41 AM. Reason : *]

8/31/2009 8:31:53 AM

Quote :

"If god removed the Third World and its cheap resources, the first world would no longer be rich"

Absolutely untrue. The third world possesses no resources that could not be extracted by Americans or Australians, both countries which (due to their large size and opulent resources) export as many resources than they import (although the recent repricing of oil may have changed that).

We are rich because capitalism allows us to use machines to do our work for us. Blowing up Mexico would not change that. We will just redeploy our machines to extract or substitute for whatever supplies were lost.

Quote :

"If the first world demanded equal working conditions and environmentally sustainable practices in Third world countries, the first world would no longer be rich"

The first world imports very little from the third world. As the third world is poor and cannot afford equal working conditions, they would not, and therefore such a rule would result in the banning of all trade with third world countries, which would harm them far more than us.

Of course, this is getting fuzzy. As China is now practically a first world nation, its loss would be momentarily disastrous for us, as its capitalist institutions have become interwoven with our own, it would take time to reorganize without it. The same cannot be said for the continent of Africa, whose loss we would feel less than a few major cities in China.

8/31/2009 2:35:36 PM

Quote :

"The third world possesses no resources that could not be extracted by Americans or Australians, both countries which (due to their large size and opulent resources) export as many resources than they import (although the recent repricing of oil may have changed that). "

One thing I think you would need to account for are the added expense of environmental and worker protections in our country (Im assuming Australia is similar) as well as NIMBY opposition to resource allocation. These will greatly increase the price of extracting them. Higher prices for natural resources will cause products to be more expensive, and thus make the First World poorer.

Quote :

"We are rich because capitalism allows us to use machines to do our work for us"

NO factory can produce without atleast some workers. You think America got rich b/c we were able to implement machines in factories? plz explain. And why does our manufacturing continually go to areas with cheaper labor if it is all run by machines? Wouldnt they want to save shipping costs by having the factory in the US closer to the consumer?

Quote :

"The first world imports very little from the third world. As the third world is poor and cannot afford equal working conditions, they would not, and therefore such a rule would result in the banning of all trade with third world countries, which would harm them far more than us. Of course, this is getting fuzzy. As China is now practically a first world nation, its loss would be momentarily disastrous for us, as its capitalist institutions have become interwoven with our own, it would take time to reorganize without it. The same cannot be said for the continent of Africa, whose loss we would feel less than a few major cities in China. ."

http://personal.lse.ac.uk/padro/meyersonpadroqian_20080407_all.pdf

(I recommend just scrolling to Figures 2 and 4 in the Appendix)

Quote :

"Africa’s total trade with China increased from USD 1 billion in 1986 to USD 50 billion in 2006, and the bulk of African exports to China are the Natural Resources (NR) needed to fuel Chinese economic growth"

its seems the first world does import from the Third world and if we "loss" Africa Im sure China would feel it as would we (if only through China)

8/31/2009 4:44:46 PM

Quote :

"These will greatly increase the price of extracting them. Higher prices for natural resources will cause products to be more expensive, and thus make the First World poorer."

Not really. We just experienced an odd confluence where the price of most resources shot up to several times their historical averages. Did American suddenly become poor when that happened? No? The answer to "why not?" is quite simple: the vast majority of the retail price of anything you buy is the labor of your fellow first world citizens (such as the Chinese) working in transportation, retail, and manufacturing.

As for resources, I just told you: the United States alone produces more raw materials every year than the whole of Africa. This nation is chock full of mining operations, agriculture, and forestry. We also have whole regions full of abandoned mines which are reopening as we speak to take advantage of the current resource price spikes. Australia is doing the same. All in service of our newest First World Nation, China. This is because third world countries are poor at deploying capital to increase resource production, not so for us. In many ways, resources trapped in the third world are often wasted: only in Canada can we turn tar-sands into usable oil. Place those same reserves in most of Africa and they would never be of use for anything.

Quote :

"You think America got rich b/c we were able to implement machines in factories? plz explain. And why does our manufacturing continually go to areas with cheaper labor if it is all run by machines?"

Simple, it doesn't. America's factories as of 2007 were pumping out more than twice what they were in 1991, and they are doing it with a substantially smaller workforce.

9/1/2009 8:55:03 PM

http://arstechnica.com/gaming/news/2009/09/hot-coffee-finally-cold-with-20-million-settlement.ars

Capitalism squashes creativity and imposes morality (in this case).

9/2/2009 11:13:47 AM

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/09/axelrod-obama-may-get-more-specific-in-health-care-rhetoric.php?ref=fpblg

Quote :

"Afghan Opium Production Down -- Due To Excess Supply The Washington Post reports that a new U.N. report to be released today will show opium production in Afghanistan down sharply. However, this is due to the fact that supply of the drug has been so high for the past several years, that prices reached a ten-year low. "Overall, you could say we are now profiting from a fantastic market correction,"said Jean-Luc Lemahieu of the U.N. Office on Drugs and Crime."

The free market works!!!!

9/2/2009 11:34:49 AM

Maybe cheap opium was Bush's plan all along?

9/2/2009 12:08:37 PM

The article really doesn't make sense (at least the snippit posted). Production is down because of an excess supply? What does that mean? Do individual producers of opium really care about "total supply" or do they care about how much they can sell, at given price, for a given cost?

I think the economically correct way to describe this is that demand for opium has unexpectedly dropped, which has resulted in stores of unsold opium and falling prices, which has led to reduced production. So it seems like a more accurate headline would be "Afgan Production Down Due to Drop in Demand"

*shrug*

Of course, this summary is comming from TPM. Not exactly the guiding light of economic journalism.

[Edited on September 2, 2009 at 2:20 PM. Reason : ``]

9/2/2009 2:20:18 PM

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/10/a-decade-with-no-income-gain/

Hey, at least we can be certain CEO and exec pay went up.

9/13/2009 12:55:08 PM

Quote :

"http://arstechnica.com/gaming/news/2009/09/hot-coffee-finally-cold-with-20-million-settlement.ars Capitalism squashes creativity and imposes morality (in this case)."

You're seriously blaming this one on capitalism, rather than hyperventillating parents with lawyers? Because it would be unpossible to imagine this happening under a more socialist government, right?

You really are shooting for the moon there, aren't you?

[Edited on September 13, 2009 at 1:06 PM. Reason : .]

9/13/2009 1:00:03 PM

^^ that shouldn’t be surprising.

Top-heavy tax cuts have historically produced the same results. Trickle-down economics is a fantasy.

[Edited on September 13, 2009 at 1:01 PM. Reason : ]

9/13/2009 1:01:21 PM

Quote :

"Hey, at least we can be certain CEO and exec pay went up."

And therefore... what? No economic system guarantees economic progress. The only question is whether we stick with or adopt a system which usually produces economic progress, or adopt another system which almost never does.

9/13/2009 3:51:06 PM