Michael Hardner Posted January 16, 2012 Report Share Posted January 16, 2012 Subways and cell phones are good things. They make life easier. Ask anyone who lives near a metro station. Or ask anyone if they would live without their cellphone. Possibly, subways and cellphones are bad for some people. Huh? Michael, the ability to start fire was possibly bad for some people too: Quest for Fire Government also steps in to mediate technological change, in several ways. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
August1991 Posted January 16, 2012 Report Share Posted January 16, 2012 The government cares very much about the losers, since they vote, and tries to use the winfall from the general benefit to help them. As I pointed out, this doesn't just mean workers - it means whole industries.So, you think a successful strategy for a political party in North America is to seek the votes of dumped husbands/wives, girlfriends/boyfriends - people who feel depressed, losers, victims: People who by chance are in the wrong lane of traffic.MH, I don't think that you know America well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted January 16, 2012 Report Share Posted January 16, 2012 So, you think a successful strategy for a political party in North America is to seek the votes of dumped husbands/wives, girlfriends/boyfriends - people who feel depressed, losers, victims: People who by chance are in the wrong lane of traffic. MH, I don't think that you know America well. There appear to be millions of such individuals. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dre Posted January 16, 2012 Report Share Posted January 16, 2012 Your use of 'good' and 'bad' are simplistic. If an economic change happens that increases your wealth by 100% and reduces mine by 50% it's a net "good" for the economy but to call it "good" overall is applying a single metric to something that has multiple outcomes. Exactly the point I was trying to make to you about trade. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted January 16, 2012 Report Share Posted January 16, 2012 Exactly the point I was trying to make to you about trade. I feel that you're saying that globalized trade is "bad". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dre Posted January 17, 2012 Report Share Posted January 17, 2012 I feel that you're saying that globalized trade is "bad". Nope not at all. I said its bad for the countries accumulating debt, and losing jobs because they make agreements that result in large and protracted trade defecits. But mostly I was trying to explain a common misunderstanding to you. See, a lot of people have come to see the the glut of offshoring, and the availability of all these cheap goods from China as "free trade", or the "global economy". This is a very common perception, and its easy to see why people believe it because free trade agreements allowed this happen, but its false. Those things are the result of a temporary trade imbalance that will correct itself over time, and would have already been largely corrected if the market was not manipulated by a number of different factors already. I think anybody should be free to trade whatever they want with whoever they want, but theres absolutely no consensus that they way many western countries have approached trade will benefit us at all beyond temporary access to extremely cheap non-durables, while our currency value is still high compared to nations producing these goods. Trying to cast me as a protectionist (not that you really did that) is just not accurate. I dont remember advocating for any protectionist policies, I make my living offshoring technology shops, and Im pretty much the only voice on here for tackling real western protectionism which lies in healthcare, and agriculture. Just because voluntary transactions between countries are generally a good thing, does NOT mean what we are doing is conducive to our long term economic interests. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
August1991 Posted February 4, 2012 Report Share Posted February 4, 2012 (edited) Sid Ryan, president of the Ontario Federation of Labour, vowed to mobilize workers from across the province to help the CAW stop "scabs" from crossing their picket lines. There was the usual hand-wringing in the press that the dispute could become "volatile," journalistic code for violence.All of this was discussed as if it were the most normal thing in the world, in the 21st century, to be resolving disputes by the use of hundreds of big heavy men to prevent or intimidate others from going about their lawful business: physical force, in other words. Of course, it isn't normal. It is a privilege largely reserved to organized labour, sanctioned by history and police unwillingness to intervene. Andrew CoyneThis is a very good column. (I've always thought that Coyne should stick to political economy.... ) Simply stated, the CAW has been playing its cards badly. I think anybody should be free to trade whatever they want with whoever they want, but theres absolutely no consensus that they way many western countries have approached trade will benefit us at all beyond temporary access to extremely cheap non-durables, while our currency value is still high compared to nations producing these goods."Our currency value is high"? "Cheap non-durables"?Why didn't Sid Ryan do as the Chinese and lower the currency/prices of his union members and accept a wage cut to $16.50/hour? According to you, dre, this is the route to riches. ---- Coyne's column has a broader message for Canada's broader union movement and for the Left in general. In this 21st century, neither is sustainable. Edited February 4, 2012 by August1991 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted February 4, 2012 Report Share Posted February 4, 2012 yes, and the prevailing sentiment has GM Diesel establishing the initial plant in Canada as their preferred alternative to paying import tariff duty costs... that was GM's willing cost to do business in Canada - ergo, the related Investment Canada Act (ICA) law/provisions were applied.in this case, the referees... Harper Conservatives... had the rulebook that included the prevailing ICA framework. The change and mitigation you speak of could be interpreted as the act of negotiating 'some degree' of protection for the London plant worker's wages/benefits. Now, we're speaking to a sale-process in play - even if Caterpillar expressed resistance to the Electro-Motive Canadian division angle, the greater sale prevails... that is to say, typically, Investment Equity firms would view the additional costs a simple matter of closing the greater sale. Or, alternatively, would Caterpillar have refused the sale conditions of purchasing U.S./Canada Electro-Motive from the Investment Equity firms that owned Electro-Motive, because of the relatively minimal cost impacts that the Harper Conservatives might have been able to leverage in terms of wage/benefit protections for the London plant workers? I seriously doubt it... Caterpillar had 2 significant drivers; 1- it coveted the described technological advantages held by Electro-Motive, and 2- it relished eliminating one of it's key competitors. in this case, from a Canadian perspective, the Harper Conservatives made an Investment Canada Act decision... one that included no protections for the London plant workers affected. yes, job well done Harper Conservatives! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LonJowett Posted February 4, 2012 Report Share Posted February 4, 2012 There's plenty of "middle class" that operate under sustainable wages and benefits. But every day you aid in the fight to get rid of them. I guess the misery of earning a very low wage loves company. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted February 4, 2012 Report Share Posted February 4, 2012 (edited) Congratulations to CAT...busted another one. The CAW never had a chance. CAT stock was up more than 3% today! Edited February 4, 2012 by bush_cheney2004 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
August1991 Posted February 4, 2012 Report Share Posted February 4, 2012 (edited) yes, job well done Harper Conservatives!Harper Conservatives? Harper did not close this plant. It is the modern, 21st century world that closed this plant.And Sid Ryan, the CAW, Canada's union movement in general and Western Leftists (ie Waldo) more broadly don't understand this. [since I am on a Canadian anglophone forum, I will avoid comment about Quebec Inc since it raises hackles. But you can Google: Mabe. Same leftist story.] Edited February 4, 2012 by August1991 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted February 4, 2012 Report Share Posted February 4, 2012 Harper Conservatives? Harper did not close this plant. It is the modern, 21st century world that closed this plant. And Sid Ryan, the CAW, Canada's union movement in general and Western Leftists (ie Waldo) more broadly don't understand this. more leftist baiting, hey? Why not speak to that, as you say, modern, 21st century manufacturing plant closing world... step up and qualify your numbspeak! You know, go beyond your typical, blathering, juvenile, ideological, small-minded baiting. speaking of what you don't broadly understand, this Harper Conservative government chose not to leverage the Investment Canada Act to even attempt to secure some degree of worker protection. Nope, none of that... instead, they pissed away corporate tax cuts on Caterpillar... they pissed away $5 million in direct handouts to Caterpillar. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
August1991 Posted February 4, 2012 Report Share Posted February 4, 2012 (edited) more leftist baiting, hey? Why not speak to that, as you say, modern, 21st century manufacturing plant closing world... step up and qualify your numbspeak! You know, go beyond your typical, blathering, juvenile, ideological, small-minded baiting.Cheaper computers eliminate the jobs of North American cashiers, just like cheaper Mexicans or Chinese eliminate the jobs of North American welders and sheet metal workers.Waldo, welcome to the modern world of cellphones, and the Internet. Mark Steyn (and you, Waldo) may complain but there's no going back to the 1950s since most of us prefer this modern world. And anyway, there are no time machines to the past. Edited February 4, 2012 by August1991 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted February 4, 2012 Report Share Posted February 4, 2012 Mark Steyn (and you, Waldo) may complain but there's no going back to the 1950s since most of us prefer this modern world. And anyway, there are no time machines to the past. Agreed. Similarly, there is no time machine to take us to a past where social programs are not in place to mitigate against the upheavals that come with technological change. Such change is good on the whole, but shifts the wealth around at the expense of a few. In recent times, government has always been there to help with retraining, retooling and to help direct the economy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted February 4, 2012 Report Share Posted February 4, 2012 Similarly, there is no time machine to take us to a past where social programs are not in place to mitigate against the upheavals that come with technological change.... Yes there is...we call such time machines "airliners", flying to the past from an airport near you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted February 4, 2012 Report Share Posted February 4, 2012 Yes there is...we call such time machines "airliners", flying to the past from an airport near you. I think I only have planes at my airport. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted February 4, 2012 Report Share Posted February 4, 2012 I think I only have planes at my airport. Then you already have a small taste of the past....today. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.