What do we do?

[bush_cheney2004]

Winning the game is more important than how it's played.

Right-on, I love games where you can ignore or make up your own rules up as you go.

That's what the losers always say.

[MiddleClassCentrist]

Is losing manufacturing so bad ? Do we think that people will be that much worse off working in home renovations, as massage therapists, or other jobs even if they might pay somewhat less ?

Note: Manufacturing brings money into the country. The occupations listed just move it within the country.

[Wild Bill]

Note: Manufacturing brings money into the country. The occupations listed just move it within the country.

Good point, MCC. It's amazing how so many folks today seem blissfully unaware of the concept of primary, secondary and tertiary industries. Even those who would not think of themselves as socialists seem to have a Marxist definition of the value of work, where it doesn't matter what you do or if anyone has any use for what you produce, all work is of equal value.

This of course is totally nuts! Work has no value unless someone is willing to pay for the product or service generated. Sweat in itself is not a medium of exchange.

Wealth comes from something being grown, dug up or fabricated. Farms, mines, factories, oil fields, fishing boats are primary industries. Making the picks to dig in a mine is a secondary industry. Giving manicures or massages to mine workers is a tertiary industry.

Wealth must first be created. Secondary and tertiary industries just re-arrange it. If there are no primary industries then we have no economy. You cannot survive by drafting everyone into the Postal Service and delivering letters to each other!

[dre]

Good point, MCC. It's amazing how so many folks today seem blissfully unaware of the concept of primary, secondary and tertiary industries. Even those who would not think of themselves as socialists seem to have a Marxist definition of the value of work, where it doesn't matter what you do or if anyone has any use for what you produce, all work is of equal value.

This of course is totally nuts! Work has no value unless someone is willing to pay for the product or service generated. Sweat in itself is not a medium of exchange.

Wealth comes from something being grown, dug up or fabricated. Farms, mines, factories, oil fields, fishing boats are primary industries. Making the picks to dig in a mine is a secondary industry. Giving manicures or massages to mine workers is a tertiary industry.

Wealth must first be created. Secondary and tertiary industries just re-arrange it. If there are no primary industries then we have no economy. You cannot survive by drafting everyone into the Postal Service and delivering letters to each other!

Its a good post WB.

And lets not forget that globalism wont stop with moving industry to where the cheap labor is. We area already seeing more initiatives to bring the cheap labor to where the manicures and massages are.

[eyeball]

That's what the losers always say.

There are no losers only players.

[bush_cheney2004]

There are no losers only players.

Then let's have more playing...and less whining.

[Michael Hardner]

Look at the time scales, Michael. The events I described happened in the early 90's, before the swindle you describe. By the time the stock manipulation started happening, Nortel was already just a pyramid scheme, no longer having a giant base manufacturing business to support itself. Everything by then was in China. If Nortel needed phones for Canada it bought them from the chinese operations.

So you're saying that a company that owned the market, and knew the technology better than anybody went to China early to reduce productions costs and STILL went bankrupt ?

[Michael Hardner]

Note: Manufacturing brings money into the country. The occupations listed just move it within the country.

Manufacturing offshore brings more profits, and theoretically lowers costs too. There's no arguing with the basic economics of it. What people are unhappy with, it's the growing gap.

Power imbalance is a concern, and I would say THE concern but the bigger picture of a changing world isn't something that we should consider changeable.

Is there a way to attract investment, foster a middle class, remain competitive ? I would say yes, and that the way to do that is to be economically vigilant. That means be smart with our education, our social spending, and our governance.

All debates about policy need to be framed around the way things are now, including and especially paying attention to social programs that help people become productive and happy.

[eyeball]

Manufacturing offshore brings more profits, and theoretically lowers costs too. There's no arguing with the basic economics of it. What people are unhappy with, it's the growing gap.

Actually at this point, the faster it grows now the more anarchy there will be and the sooner things will change. I realize that's a very cynical way of looking at things but I see this drive it till it breaks mentality time and time again all around me. I fail to see why it won't continue to hold true. It's like working with some crappy piece of equipment that management refuses to replace until it breaks, or waiting until someone is injured or killed before a poorly designed intersection is reconfigured, a population of invasive species explodes out of control or a dictator crosses a line.

Power imbalance is a concern, and I would say THE concern but the bigger picture of a changing world isn't something that we should consider changeable.

Yes, this goes to the heart of what's really wrong.

Is there a way to attract investment, foster a middle class, remain competitive ? I would say yes, and that the way to do that is to be economically vigilant. That means be smart with our education, our social spending, and our governance.

All debates about policy need to be framed around the way things are now, including and especially paying attention to social programs that help people become productive and happy.

But you'd never know it...

[eyeball]

...but the bigger picture of a changing world isn't something that we should consider changeable.

See? There's nothing to be done - THAT attitude is what we really can't seem to change.

[Wild Bill]

So you're saying that a company that owned the market, and knew the technology better than anybody went to China early to reduce productions costs and STILL went bankrupt ?

Michael, it appears you did not read my post about what happened. That's NOT what I said, in any way, shape or form!

Sorry, I haven't had enough coffee yet to want to type it all over again.

[Guest Manny]

See? There's nothing to be done - THAT attitude is what we really can't seem to change.

Not as long as "I'm alright, Jack."

Much like a child, a naive person only looks at what is happening in the immediate here and now, and cannot project into the future. That's why I said, we were naive to accept globalization. We didn't realize the long term effect it would have, and how it ultimately only benefits the few. We had no idea how they were pulling the rug out from under us.

[Michael Hardner]

Actually at this point, the faster it grows now the more anarchy there will be and the sooner things will change. I realize that's a very cynical way of looking at things but I see this drive it till it breaks mentality time and time again all around me. I fail to see why it won't continue to hold true. It's like working with some crappy piece of equipment that management refuses to replace until it breaks, or waiting until someone is injured or killed before a poorly designed intersection is reconfigured, a population of invasive species explodes out of control or a dictator crosses a line.

It remains to be seen whether the current climate will actually lead to social unrest. From Orwell's 1984, the idea was that the bourgeoisie encouraged the proletariat to revolt in order for them to switch places with the ruling elite.

Computer game sales continue to climb, so the proletariat are probably otherwise "occupied".

[Michael Hardner]

See? There's nothing to be done - THAT attitude is what we really can't seem to change.

What would you have us change?

Harnessing MPs with video cameras is the last idea of yours I checked out. It doesn't make any more sense to me today, if that's what you're still suggesting. Society needs to be funded and invested by capital, for which there is strong competition. Simply passing a law to make the rich pay more isn't going to solve our problems.

And what are our problems anyway ? This isn't the 1930s, in terms the material poverty of the working class, but it is very much there in terms of power balance. What do we want ? More distribution of wealth ? How did we achieve that in the mid 20th century ? Social strife and catastrophic war was part of it. It would be better to achieve it today by finding a way for more capital to be invested in people.

[Michael Hardner]

Michael, it appears you did not read my post about what happened. That's NOT what I said, in any way, shape or form!

Sorry, I haven't had enough coffee yet to want to type it all over again.

Ok, well I went back and it's still not clear to me. I couldn't find a clear explanation on the wiki page - do you have a link for me ?

[Wild Bill]

Ok, well I went back and it's still not clear to me. I couldn't find a clear explanation on the wiki page - do you have a link for me ?

They did NOT go to China to reduce production costs!The initial idea was that China had no telephones or telephone systems and would be a huge new market for NorTel here in Canada. Chretien got as many photo ops as he could of shaking Chinese hands. We were all led to believe that it would mean megadollars of production in Kanata and Toronto.

AFTER the deals were signed the deal started to be changed. The Chinese were not stupid, at least not as stupid as our people, and demanded that NorTel build factories in China and show Chinese workers how to build the phones and their associated systems. They wanted to develop an industry for themselves.

NorTel went along with this with some kind of naive arrogance! They didn't appear to have any idea what this would do to their operations at home!

When the domestic production began to suffer NorTel's managers did not appear to be happy they had saved some production costs. Rather, they began to panic! The intent was never to close their domestic production but of course, that's exactly what had to happen! We never saw so many high level managers appear to be so blind!

That is when I began to lose all faith in management when I was first introduced - waiting until I saw some history before I would place my confidence with them.

So it was not a deliberate move to reduce production costs, Michael. This was just blind, arrogant ignorance! Most of those managers involved lost their own jobs later on.

The Chinese likely thought these were the biggest patsies on the planet!

[Michael Hardner]

They did NOT go to China to reduce production costs!The initial idea was that China had no telephones or telephone systems and would be a huge new market for NorTel here in Canada. Chretien got as many photo ops as he could of shaking Chinese hands. We were all led to believe that it would mean megadollars of production in Kanata and Toronto.

AFTER the deals were signed the deal started to be changed. The Chinese were not stupid, at least not as stupid as our people, and demanded that NorTel build factories in China and show Chinese workers how to build the phones and their associated systems. They wanted to develop an industry for themselves.

NorTel went along with this with some kind of naive arrogance! They didn't appear to have any idea what this would do to their operations at home!

When the domestic production began to suffer NorTel's managers did not appear to be happy they had saved some production costs. Rather, they began to panic! The intent was never to close their domestic production but of course, that's exactly what had to happen! We never saw so many high level managers appear to be so blind!

They panicked why ? They were losing their jobs ? Ok, well that makes sense.

Giving away corporate secrets is stupid, if that's what they did.

So it was not a deliberate move to reduce production costs, Michael. This was just blind, arrogant ignorance! Most of those managers involved lost their own jobs later on.

Ok, well you're blaming the government for this then ?

[Wild Bill]

They panicked why ? They were losing their jobs ? Ok, well that makes sense.

Giving away corporate secrets is stupid, if that's what they did.

Ok, well you're blaming the government for this then ?

Michael, either I'm explaining it extremely poorly or you are very distracted while reading my posts.

Perhaps we should just move on...

[Michael Hardner]

I'm going to opt for #1 here, Bill:

"When the domestic production began to suffer NorTel's managers did not appear to be happy they had saved some production costs. Rather, they began to panic!"

Why would they suffer if production started to go offshore ? That was a decision that senior management made, as you explained, and presumably communicated to their people.

Did you mean to say that "when domestic sales began to fall behind due to competition from China" ?

[Wild Bill]

I'm going to opt for #1 here, Bill:

"When the domestic production began to suffer NorTel's managers did not appear to be happy they had saved some production costs. Rather, they began to panic!"

Why would they suffer if production started to go offshore ? That was a decision that senior management made, as you explained, and presumably communicated to their people.

Did you mean to say that "when domestic sales began to fall behind due to competition from China" ?

That would be one meaning, I suppose! I simply meant that even the highest management appeared to be genuinely surprised at how the domestic production suffered, to the point where there was no longer any point to have ANY domestic production!

I had been out of the sales end for a few years as a purchasing agent and returned to sales at that time. I began to call all the obvious accounts to try to set up appointments with their engineering departments. This was a standard technique for a good salesman - you would support engineers with data sheets and samples of new and existing devices that could solve some of their design problems. In return, their purchasing department would make sure you were considered a preferred supplier, as such support was vital for new product development.

The engineers were so incredibly eager and friendly to see me I was frankly quite puzzled! They waltzed me around their office like I was royalty. At the end of it all, I asked them for the names of people in their purchasing department that I should be seeing, in order to have a shot at quotes for production orders.

They all started to look down and scuff their shoes back and forth. Finally one admitted that there no longer was any domestic purchasing. Since all production had been moved to China all purchasing was now being done there as well.

Then I understood. Domestic suppliers were no longer supporting NorTel's engineers, since they would never receive any benefit for that support! No wonder the engineers were so lonely!

As I drove to my next call I was wondering if NorTel's management had realized that was going to happen?

Anyhow, it never seemed to us in the industry that NorTel's management had planned and understood all the ramifications all along. RAther, they just seemed to have gone with the flow, just reacting to what the Chinese were pushing. As I had also said, there was an incredible amount of push coming from the Liberal government, who absolutely wanted more trade with China.

I think the Chinese just hosed a bunch of rubes, Michael! Remember, this was the mid 90's. Moving production to China was just starting to happen. What also used to amaze me was an official line that somehow this was all a good thing, as all the grunt jobs would be done by primitive Chinese and all the engineering and brain work would be done by us!

This always seemed to me to be just naive arrogance. The Chinese are as smart if not smarter than us and have now proved it over and over!

Did you notice in the news how they just sent 3 more astronauts to the Chinese Space Station?

It looks like it will be US condemned to do all the grunt work!

[eyeball]

What would you have us change?

Harnessing MPs with video cameras is the last idea of yours I checked out. It doesn't make any more sense to me today, if that's what you're still suggesting.

You know what they say about those who say it can't be done...

Bolivian custom officers will have to carry special pens, with a hidden micro-camera and voice recorder, as part of a government initiative to tackle corruption.

Story

I'd be more impressed with a citizen's initiative to tackle government corruption but I do notice Bolivian customs director Marlene Ardaya who announced the measure will be issued her own pen too.

It's a start, but sooner or later other societies will start experimenting with forcing compliance at higher and higher levels of government until such point that it dawns on most that concentrating integrity and honesty at the highest levels of society will cause them to trickle down through the rest. Do that and I bet we'd finally see a lot more wealth start trickling down too for a change.