• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

GE moving X-ray business to China


Breaking my rule of replying to silliness.

com·pete   /kəmˈpit/ Show Spelled
[kuhm-peet] Show IPA

–verb (used without object), -pet·ed, -pet·ing.
to strive to outdo another for acknowledgment, a prize, supremacy, profit, etc.; engage in a contest; vie: to compete in a race; to compete in business.

Compete | Define Compete at Dictionary.com

Not the same as winning:

win·ning   /ˈwɪnɪŋ/ Show Spelled
[win-ing] Show IPA

–noun
1. the act of a person or thing that wins.
2. Usually, winnings. something that is won, especially money.
3. Mining .
a. any opening by which coal is being or has been extracted.
b. a bed of coal ready for mining.

Google

Moving on.

:coffeepap
 
And we continue to fight that, and we are doing so, But the trade should continue with push/pull benefits and responses.

We are making progress in these areas and it is not as quick as some would like. But it is a process and we have to understand that.

Yes, I agree with that. I am not in favor of tariffs unless it's in response to a specific tariff on the other side.
 
Of course I did and I responded. Did you not read what I wrote??



Where did anyone claim China has the same standard of living? Canada can compete with China and does. No one here is complaining of trade with China, nor is Australia. In fact I don;t here it from anyone but Americans.
Canada does not compete with China, neither does Australia.


Canada and Australia are primarily resource based economies, that are doing well because of China's demand for resources. China does not have the as much domestic resources as it needs to supply its economy. In industries that Canada does compete with China, we are not doing so well. Hence the decline in manufacturing. In areas that we do not compete with China in we do ok. But Canada does have a trade deficit with China if I recall correctly (our resources tend to be exported to the US and not China) Australia I expect will have a trade surplus with China however
 
Canada does not compete with China, neither does Australia.


Canada and Australia are primarily resource based economies, that are doing well because of China's demand for resources. China does not have the as much domestic resources as it needs to supply its economy. In industries that Canada does compete with China, we are not doing so well. Hence the decline in manufacturing. In areas that we do not compete with China in we do ok. But Canada does have a trade deficit with China if I recall correctly (our resources tend to be exported to the US and not China) Australia I expect will have a trade surplus with China however


We do buy a lot of your oil.
 
Canada does not compete with China, neither does Australia.


Canada and Australia are primarily resource based economies, that are doing well because of China's demand for resources. China does not have the as much domestic resources as it needs to supply its economy. In industries that Canada does compete with China, we are not doing so well. Hence the decline in manufacturing. In areas that we do not compete with China in we do ok. But Canada does have a trade deficit with China if I recall correctly (our resources tend to be exported to the US and not China) Australia I expect will have a trade surplus with China however

If you looked at the context of what the posts said you'd understand of how the word 'compete' was being used. Under your example we are therefore 'competing ' with Australia rather than China.

The point is that we can all 'compete' in this world using whatever resources are at hand be they 'natural' resources or 'human' resources. Those human resources might include manual or intellectual resources.
 
If you looked at the context of what the posts said you'd understand of how the word 'compete' was being used. Under your example we are therefore 'competing ' with Australia rather than China.

The point is that we can all 'compete' in this world using whatever resources are at hand be they 'natural' resources or 'human' resources. Those human resources might include manual or intellectual resources.

I didn't think you understood. :shrug:
 
Maybe you should read slower. Let me repost:






Well, . . . we're competeing with China. Maybe you didn't know that. Canada has UHC. This is important.

However, you're still missing the point. We don't want to compete with them concerning WAGES. They pay much less.

Obviously he fully recognizes that fact when he says the their standard of living is much lower than the US. China has much lower income per capita than advanced economies. The only way for them to increase real wages is to continue its market liberalization and continue its trade liberalizations. It is these changes that have allowed chinas economy to rapidly grow over the course of modern history and has caused the standard of living in china to grow rapidly. Trade does not happen if it is not mutually beneficial. I don't understand how you can think it does. China does not just ship stuff over here and have it sit in boxes. People buy the stuff because there is an obvious cost advantage. Maybe it helps if you would realize that this is not just about money, but comes down to real things. We literally could not make all the things we have if we did not trade with china. It is impossible, these tradeoffs for production are represented by money. It costs more to make clothes in the US because we could be making more expensive aircraft parts instead. Because trade happens, it is mutually beneficial, and because it allows us to make more things, and it allows capital to flow to its most productive uses it net INCREASES REAL WAGES.
 
Obviously he fully recognizes that fact when he says the their standard of living is much lower than the US. China has much lower income per capita than advanced economies. The only way for them to increase real wages is to continue its market liberalization and continue its trade liberalizations. It is these changes that have allowed chinas economy to rapidly grow over the course of modern history and has caused the standard of living in china to grow rapidly. Trade does not happen if it is not mutually beneficial. I don't understand how you can think it does. China does not just ship stuff over here and have it sit in boxes. People buy the stuff because there is an obvious cost advantage. Maybe it helps if you would realize that this is not just about money, but comes down to real things. We literally could not make all the things we have if we did not trade with china. It is impossible, these tradeoffs for production are represented by money. It costs more to make clothes in the US because we could be making more expensive aircraft parts instead. Because trade happens, it is mutually beneficial, and because it allows us to make more things, and it allows capital to flow to its most productive uses it net INCREASES REAL WAGES.

Yes, people buy it. But buying it does not increase wages here. We are not making more things today. At least not by actual employed workers. China is. Odds are you American Flag was made somewhere other than in America/

We are seeing more wealthy people, but also more poorer people, and less middle class. This gap is growing. So when we say it is beneficial, beneficial for whom? Just because people buy cheap **** doesn't mean they are benfitting in the long run. Small mom and pop shops were more expensive, but gave decent wealth to a larger number of people, and provided a better connection in the community, for example.
 
Yes, people buy it. But buying it does not increase wages here. We are not making more things today. At least not by actual employed workers. China is. Odds are you American Flag was made somewhere other than in America/

We are seeing more wealthy people, but also more poorer people, and less middle class. This gap is growing. So when we say it is beneficial, beneficial for whom? Just because people buy cheap **** doesn't mean they are benfitting in the long run. Small mom and pop shops were more expensive, but gave decent wealth to a larger number of people, and provided a better connection in the community, for example.

Small mom and pop stores being more expensive would give decent wealth to their small number of owners and employees and otherwise be a bad deal to everyone else. With some competition, consumers could choose the better store, providing more wealth for everyone else. Now everyone would have more money to spend on other things, which would mean that businesses other than the mom and pop store could thrive with this new found wealth.
 
Yes, people buy it. But buying it does not increase wages here. We are not making more things today. At least not by actual employed workers. China is. Odds are you American Flag was made somewhere other than in America/

We are seeing more wealthy people, but also more poorer people, and less middle class. This gap is growing. So when we say it is beneficial, beneficial for whom? Just because people buy cheap **** doesn't mean they are benfitting in the long run. Small mom and pop shops were more expensive, but gave decent wealth to a larger number of people, and provided a better connection in the community, for example.

Small mom and pop stores never paid a very high wage. I remember working for one and they were allowed to pay me less than minimum wage because of the number of people they employed.

People could simply get by on less then.
 
Small mom and pop stores being more expensive would give decent wealth to their small number of owners and employees and otherwise be a bad deal to everyone else. With some competition, consumers could choose the better store, providing more wealth for everyone else. Now everyone would have more money to spend on other things, which would mean that businesses other than the mom and pop store could thrive with this new found wealth.

No, not really. As they were part of the community, a contributing part of the community, along with other contributing members, it was a pretty good deall all around. And no, customers don't alway choose the better store. Wlamart is not better than a lot of those stores that fell. Too often they choose the cheaper store. Cost over quality. And instead of the local business man with much more money to spend, we have more and more low wage workers. Look around you. It has not worked as you suggest.
 
Small mom and pop stores never paid a very high wage. I remember working for one and they were allowed to pay me less than minimum wage because of the number of people they employed.

People could simply get by on less then.

Didn't say they did. But, they did reasonably well and they, local people, benefitted from the money made. I worked for one when I was ten. He didn't need me, but he paid me. However, as I said, that wasn't my point.
 
No, not really. As they were part of the community, a contributing part of the community, along with other contributing members, it was a pretty good deall all around. And no, customers don't alway choose the better store. Wlamart is not better than a lot of those stores that fell. Too often they choose the cheaper store. Cost over quality. And instead of the local business man with much more money to spend, we have more and more low wage workers. Look around you. It has not worked as you suggest.

I do look around but apparently do not see the same things as you. Income in the US has risen substantially over the years (with the exception of 2008). Even as the lower brackets have grown more slowly they are the ones that benefit most from cheaper goods. 10 years ago, how many people had a computer? a cell phone? a flat screen TV? Those are just a few examples. Obviously we are not getting worse off.
 
I do look around but apparently do not see the same things as you. Income in the US has risen substantially over the years (with the exception of 2008). Even as the lower brackets have grown more slowly they are the ones that benefit most from cheaper goods. 10 years ago, how many people had a computer? a cell phone? a flat screen TV? Those are just a few examples. Obviously we are not getting worse off.

Your standard is trinkets?

The rich, the poor and the growing gap between them
The rich are the big gainers in America's new prosperity

The political consensus, therefore, has sought to pursue economic growth rather than the redistribution of income, in keeping with John Kennedy's adage that “a rising tide lifts all boats.” The tide has been rising fast recently. Thanks to a jump in productivity growth after 1995, America's economy has outpaced other rich countries' for a decade. Its workers now produce over 30% more each hour they work than ten years ago. In the late 1990s everybody shared in this boom. Though incomes were rising fastest at the top, all workers' wages far outpaced inflation.

But after 2000 something changed. The pace of productivity growth has been rising again, but now it seems to be lifting fewer boats. After you adjust for inflation, the wages of the typical American worker—the one at the very middle of the income distribution—have risen less than 1% since 2000. In the previous five years, they rose over 6%. If you take into account the value of employee benefits, such as health care, the contrast is a little less stark. But, whatever the measure, it seems clear that only the most skilled workers have seen their pay packets swell much in the current economic expansion. The fruits of productivity gains have been skewed towards the highest earners, and towards companies, whose profits have reached record levels as a share of GDP.

Inequality in America: The rich, the poor and the growing gap between them | The Economist

I learned many years ago that you have such things and still be deadly poor. Visit a Native American Reservation in Montana. Visit the projects (I grew up in one). But, I will say your thinking is like that of a poor person, who tries to make up forhis position by finding away to have these things. Once $100 sneakers were status. Only to the very poor.
 
I do look around but apparently do not see the same things as you. Income in the US has risen substantially over the years (with the exception of 2008). Even as the lower brackets have grown more slowly they are the ones that benefit most from cheaper goods. 10 years ago, how many people had a computer? a cell phone? a flat screen TV? Those are just a few examples. Obviously we are not getting worse off.

I don't know what you're looking at, but real income growth has been virtually nonexistent outside of the top 1%. Here is a stunning statistic: “of every dollar of real income growth that was generated between 1976 and 2007, 58 cents went to the top 1 per cent of households”.
 
Your standard is trinkets?

We could look at the number of home owners over the years. Maybe the number of cars owned by somebody? I am sure that has risen as well.

The rich, the poor and the growing gap between them
The rich are the big gainers in America's new prosperity

The political consensus, therefore, has sought to pursue economic growth rather than the redistribution of income, in keeping with John Kennedy's adage that “a rising tide lifts all boats.” The tide has been rising fast recently. Thanks to a jump in productivity growth after 1995, America's economy has outpaced other rich countries' for a decade. Its workers now produce over 30% more each hour they work than ten years ago. In the late 1990s everybody shared in this boom. Though incomes were rising fastest at the top, all workers' wages far outpaced inflation.

But after 2000 something changed. The pace of productivity growth has been rising again, but now it seems to be lifting fewer boats. After you adjust for inflation, the wages of the typical American worker—the one at the very middle of the income distribution—have risen less than 1% since 2000. In the previous five years, they rose over 6%. If you take into account the value of employee benefits, such as health care, the contrast is a little less stark. But, whatever the measure, it seems clear that only the most skilled workers have seen their pay packets swell much in the current economic expansion. The fruits of productivity gains have been skewed towards the highest earners, and towards companies, whose profits have reached record levels as a share of GDP.

Inequality does not prove that people are worse off:
400-200 = 200
1000 - 201 = 799
201 > 200

I learned many years ago that you have such things and still be deadly poor. Visit a Native American Reservation in Montana. Visit the projects (I grew up in one). But, I will say your thinking is like that of a poor person, who tries to make up forhis position by finding away to have these things. Once $100 sneakers were status. Only to the very poor.

The projects and Indian Reservations make up a very small portion of the US, but I would bet that they have even improved over the past 20-30 years of economic liberalization. Even if they have not, it is hard to despute for the broad majority, over 95%, our lives have been made better off, not worse off over the years.
 
We could look at the number of home owners over the years. Maybe the number of cars owned by somebody? I am sure that has risen as well.

We could. But, even that would be skewed by the glut we have of such things and by the ability to borrow beyond our means.


Inequality does not prove that people are worse off:
400-200 = 200
1000 - 201 = 799
201 > 200

Technically correct, but a sign of a trend. An important trend.

The projects and Indian Reservations make up a very small portion of the US, but I would bet that they have even improved over the past 20-30 years of economic liberalization. Even if they have not, it is hard to despute for the broad majority, over 95%, our lives have been made better off, not worse off over the years.

Missed the point. They have computers, TVs, and cars. You should visit and make a judgment on how well off they are.
 
Your standard is trinkets?

and yours is pink slipping EVERY teacher in detroit?

Once $100 sneakers were status. Only to the very poor.

last tuesday, from census data:

Modern Poverty Includes A.C. and an Xbox - By Ken McIntyre - The Corner - National Review Online

98% of americans below the poverty line have a tv, 82% have a microwave, 78% air conditioning, 71% a vcr, 65% a second tv, 65% a dvd, 64% cable, 55% a cell phone

on the other hand, only 38% have a personal computer, only 33% have a third tv, 29% internet, 28% a printer

and only 18% have a big flat screen tv

we gotta do something about those numbers under 50%

who among us can go a week without a printer
 
BTW, I can intorduce you to people who have those things, but not runnig water, or indoor toliets, or adequate health care, or in some cases, enough food. Foolishly mistakeing one thing for the other is your error. It is more than possible to have those things, and still be poor, still be worse off.
 
BTW, I can intorduce you to people who have those things, but not runnig water, or indoor toliets, or adequate health care, or in some cases, enough food. Foolishly mistakeing one thing for the other is your error. It is more than possible to have those things, and still be poor, still be worse off.

OK, I will admit health care is a failing market in my opinion. However, indoor plumbing I am sure has been reaching almost universal levels for some time now. You are literally arguing against free trade because of a fraction of a percent of Americans are doing poorly for reasons you cannot even prove.
 
BTW, I can intorduce (sic) you to people who have those things, but not runnig (sic) water, or indoor toliets(sic)

well, if they got internet, cable and a cell phone...

maybe some of em should rethink
 
Back
Top Bottom