Black Holes, Bachmann, and the space between her ears

[Anarkistsdream]

It s quite amusing to read such a witty article then listen to what that woman has to say... Anyway, as tgd says it s better to ignore her.

That theory about black holes is pretty interesting. It s all a bit frustrating though.. Who knows if on top of regular physics and quantum mechanics astrophysicians won t find other sets of laws... At least stuff that will not depend on a given space-time referent but that could be more generalistic.. I think it s time for us to become genetically modified cyborgs. We aint gonna understand this universe otherwise.

"frustrating" is an odd choice of word there. I would say "encouraging." We have to hope that physics is wrong, because if orthodox thought is right then there will never be faster-than-light travel, and most of the interesting things that go on in other corners of the universe will forever be closed to us. If we are ever to go on intergalactic voyages of exploration and meet other intelligent races up-close-and-personal, we have to hope that Einstein got it all wrong and that faster-than-light ships are possible.

You are assuming we really need to travel the distances. We don't.

We will if we keep ruining this planet...

[AndyDufresne]

I am an optimistic person, but intergalactic travel may always be beyond our reach sadly. Some interstellar travel centuries from now might be possible.

Related unrelated, I'm currently reading '5 Billion Years of Solitude': http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/10/books ... lings.html


--Andy

[Anarkistsdream]

I am an optimistic person, but intergalactic travel may always be beyond our reach sadly. Some interstellar travel centuries from now might be possible.

Related unrelated, I'm currently reading '5 Billion Years of Solitude': http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/10/books ... lings.html


--Andy

See, I am not too concerned with interstellar travel... I certainly don't think anyone alive right now will see it unless aliens come down and GIVE us the technology.

However, colonizing the moon or Mars is much more plausible, and I would like to think that maybe we could see something like that before we all die (or kill ourselves).

[crispybits]

I thought Hawking's latest paper article just said the event horizon wasn't so inescapable. Black holes are still posited.

-TG

Did it mention matter and anti-matter particles occurring on the edge of the event horizon and how---SOMETIMES--they may fail to 'cancel each other out' so that 'new' matter is created?

Or am I thinking of something else?

You may well be thinking about Lawrence Krauss, who has observed this effect and posited that it is how a universe could conceivably come from "nothing" (OK not nothing because you need an event horizon of some sort, but then we get into the definition of nothing which has been argued about for a very very long time)

[nietzsche]

It s quite amusing to read such a witty article then listen to what that woman has to say... Anyway, as tgd says it s better to ignore her.

That theory about black holes is pretty interesting. It s all a bit frustrating though.. Who knows if on top of regular physics and quantum mechanics astrophysicians won t find other sets of laws... At least stuff that will not depend on a given space-time referent but that could be more generalistic.. I think it s time for us to become genetically modified cyborgs. We aint gonna understand this universe otherwise.

"frustrating" is an odd choice of word there. I would say "encouraging." We have to hope that physics is wrong, because if orthodox thought is right then there will never be faster-than-light travel, and most of the interesting things that go on in other corners of the universe will forever be closed to us. If we are ever to go on intergalactic voyages of exploration and meet other intelligent races up-close-and-personal, we have to hope that Einstein got it all wrong and that faster-than-light ships are possible.

You are assuming we really need to travel the distances. We don't.

We will if we keep ruining this planet...

What I meant is, we don't necessarily need to break the light speed barrier.

[Gillipig]

Hello, yes, why does her position on science matter? She is not a scientist, she is a politician. Her economic positions are in line with free market principles, which is really all that counts. As a grad student in history, you could probably find all sorts of ridiculous things I've said regarding math, science, and every other subject which does not fall under the purview of my specialty.

Economics is a science, and I would hope an adherent of free markets also equipped themselves with a good understanding of science; otherwise, they might be doing more harm than good by expressing support of free markets.

Idolizing free market capitalism has really worked for the United States the last 15 years hasn't it?

The US is not a free market, with good reason. Most of the prominent people claiming to want a free market don't understand the concept (no BBS... NOT referring to you ). Most politicians touting the "free market" lately are really just about cronism, not free markets.

But the U.S idolize this concept and many wish it could be done, you (and we) need to go in the other direction. Subsidized government created (not funded) businesses who can outcompete businesses who put their factories in low wage countries like China. This is the only way I see that manufacturing jobs could return to the west. I can see no other way of doing it, if you have another suggestion I'd actually like to hear it.

[BigBallinStalin]

Hello, yes, why does her position on science matter? She is not a scientist, she is a politician. Her economic positions are in line with free market principles, which is really all that counts. As a grad student in history, you could probably find all sorts of ridiculous things I've said regarding math, science, and every other subject which does not fall under the purview of my specialty.

Economics is a science, and I would hope an adherent of free markets also equipped themselves with a good understanding of science; otherwise, they might be doing more harm than good by expressing support of free markets.

Idolizing free market capitalism has really worked for the United States the last 15 years hasn't it?

The US is not a free market, with good reason. Most of the prominent people claiming to want a free market don't understand the concept (no BBS... NOT referring to you ). Most politicians touting the "free market" lately are really just about cronism, not free markets.

But the U.S idolize this concept and many wish it could be done, you (and we) need to go in the other direction. Subsidized government created (not funded) businesses who can outcompete businesses who put their factories in low wage countries like China. This is the only way I see that manufacturing jobs could return to the west. I can see no other way of doing it, if you have another suggestion I'd actually like to hear it.

Starting an organization which pummels anyone by the username of Gillipig?

[Gillipig]

Hello, yes, why does her position on science matter? She is not a scientist, she is a politician. Her economic positions are in line with free market principles, which is really all that counts. As a grad student in history, you could probably find all sorts of ridiculous things I've said regarding math, science, and every other subject which does not fall under the purview of my specialty.

Economics is a science, and I would hope an adherent of free markets also equipped themselves with a good understanding of science; otherwise, they might be doing more harm than good by expressing support of free markets.

Idolizing free market capitalism has really worked for the United States the last 15 years hasn't it?

The US is not a free market, with good reason. Most of the prominent people claiming to want a free market don't understand the concept (no BBS... NOT referring to you ). Most politicians touting the "free market" lately are really just about cronism, not free markets.

But the U.S idolize this concept and many wish it could be done, you (and we) need to go in the other direction. Subsidized government created (not funded) businesses who can outcompete businesses who put their factories in low wage countries like China. This is the only way I see that manufacturing jobs could return to the west. I can see no other way of doing it, if you have another suggestion I'd actually like to hear it.

Starting an organization which pummels anyone by the username of Gillipig?

That would be highly counterproductive. Do you know how many american programmers are being employed to keep me out of internet forums? NO? Well it's pretty many. Don't do their work for free, it will hurt the economy.

[PLAYER57832]

The US is not a free market, with good reason. Most of the prominent people claiming to want a free market don't understand the concept (no BBS... NOT referring to you ). Most politicians touting the "free market" lately are really just about cronism, not free markets.

But the U.S idolize this concept and many wish it could be done, you (and we) need to go in the other direction. Subsidized government created (not funded) businesses who can outcompete businesses who put their factories in low wage countries like China. This is the only way I see that manufacturing jobs could return to the west. I can see no other way of doing it, if you have another suggestion I'd actually like to hear it.

The free market came up essentially as an alternative to Monarchies. It was, in many ways, an improvement over the older systems. However, we quickly saw that no market actually can be truly free if we don't want to be ruled by bullies that are no better,often much worse, than old monarchies (who though soemtimes with ultimate power still were supposed to have an ehtical obligation to protect those they ruled). The idea of charity/patronage aka Carnegie, Ford was sort of an ethical answer, but so, too were rules preventing monopolies, requiring honesty in advertising and some safety testing of products, worker protections, etc.

In the US, though, that has never been the whole story. While we have approaches a free market, our political system has always been a Republic. Sweden, Denmark,as well as European countries are all much smaller and in many respects perhaps more "truly Democratic" (DEFINITELY DEBATABLE!!!), if for no other reason that the fact that there is naturally far more unity and agreement in a smaller country. A child in Rinkobing, DK and one in Copenhagen will have very similar lifestyles. One in the Louisian Bayou, a native Alaskan village, NY City and coastal California will differ more from each other in many cases than if they migrated to a foreign country.

Anyway, the Republic idea was more or less a "stop gap"supposedly to have "knowledgeable" people who could keep the worst of common people's vagaries from doing too much harm, as well as a slowing down to keep the nation from blowing with every wind. It has done that, but it also means that once you get outside of strict polling, power is concentrated in groups.

The historic idea is that groundswells of ideas will change that, will keep huge business interests, etc in check. However, today, the internet means that average people suddenly have access to all the information they want, and they want to act upon that knowledge. They are not willing to trust "experts" because they can "do their own research" on the internet. Except... they really cannot. Different information means very different opinions. We see gaps in information and therefore opinion, here, that are as great as the gap between people in,say Saudis Arabia and Sweden. EAch group is sure they are "correct" and that the "others are just dummies". Its not just that they have no incentive to check out the oppositiion, internet search structures and tailoring mean its actually harder to find information that you won't agree with already.

THAT is the real issue here. Fundamental to a true free market is information. Information is necessary to true choice. We don't have limited information, but we have the spread of so much information that its nearly impossible to filter out its truth, its importance outside or our specific fields of expertise.

YET... most people like to believe they have all the information they need,can make their own choices. Its a system rife for abuse,and some wealthy individuals, large companies and power groups of other types have certainly used it.

Folks like BBS want to say that the problem is regulation. I say the problem is lack of information control. That is, not control in the sense of limiting opinions, but control in the sense of far more clarity over what really is opinion and what just is not. When we have thousands of supposedly educated adults arguing that "evolution is just an unproven theory" or that "climate change is jsut a political stunt allowing some people to gain power", etc, etc, etc -- it is a problem that goes well beyond the problem of monopolies.

[Gillipig]

The US is not a free market, with good reason. Most of the prominent people claiming to want a free market don't understand the concept (no BBS... NOT referring to you ). Most politicians touting the "free market" lately are really just about cronism, not free markets.

But the U.S idolize this concept and many wish it could be done, you (and we) need to go in the other direction. Subsidized government created (not funded) businesses who can outcompete businesses who put their factories in low wage countries like China. This is the only way I see that manufacturing jobs could return to the west. I can see no other way of doing it, if you have another suggestion I'd actually like to hear it.

The free market came up essentially as an alternative to Monarchies. It was, in many ways, an improvement over the older systems. However, we quickly saw that no market actually can be truly free if we don't want to be ruled by bullies that are no better,often much worse, than old monarchies (who though soemtimes with ultimate power still were supposed to have an ehtical obligation to protect those they ruled). The idea of charity/patronage aka Carnegie, Ford was sort of an ethical answer, but so, too were rules preventing monopolies, requiring honesty in advertising and some safety testing of products, worker protections, etc.

In the US, though, that has never been the whole story. While we have approaches a free market, our political system has always been a Republic. Sweden, Denmark,as well as European countries are all much smaller and in many respects perhaps more "truly Democratic" (DEFINITELY DEBATABLE!!!), if for no other reason that the fact that there is naturally far more unity and agreement in a smaller country. A child in Rinkobing, DK and one in Copenhagen will have very similar lifestyles. One in the Louisian Bayou, a native Alaskan village, NY City and coastal California will differ more from each other in many cases than if they migrated to a foreign country.

Anyway, the Republic idea was more or less a "stop gap"supposedly to have "knowledgeable" people who could keep the worst of common people's vagaries from doing too much harm, as well as a slowing down to keep the nation from blowing with every wind. It has done that, but it also means that once you get outside of strict polling, power is concentrated in groups.

The historic idea is that groundswells of ideas will change that, will keep huge business interests, etc in check. However, today, the internet means that average people suddenly have access to all the information they want, and they want to act upon that knowledge. They are not willing to trust "experts" because they can "do their own research" on the internet. Except... they really cannot. Different information means very different opinions. We see gaps in information and therefore opinion, here, that are as great as the gap between people in,say Saudis Arabia and Sweden. EAch group is sure they are "correct" and that the "others are just dummies". Its not just that they have no incentive to check out the oppositiion, internet search structures and tailoring mean its actually harder to find information that you won't agree with already.

THAT is the real issue here. Fundamental to a true free market is information. Information is necessary to true choice. We don't have limited information, but we have the spread of so much information that its nearly impossible to filter out its truth, its importance outside or our specific fields of expertise.

YET... most people like to believe they have all the information they need,can make their own choices. Its a system rife for abuse,and some wealthy individuals, large companies and power groups of other types have certainly used it.

Folks like BBS want to say that the problem is regulation. I say the problem is lack of information control. That is, not control in the sense of limiting opinions, but control in the sense of far more clarity over what really is opinion and what just is not. When we have thousands of supposedly educated adults arguing that "evolution is just an unproven theory" or that "climate change is jsut a political stunt allowing some people to gain power", etc, etc, etc -- it is a problem that goes well beyond the problem of monopolies.

That was a long post, and a bit of a history lesson, maybe I missed it, but I don't see how you answered my concern, which was bringing back jobs. You talked about information control, and that people make uninformed decision based on what they read on the internet. Can you give concrete examples of what type of decisions you are referring to? You mentioned evolution denial and climate change denial, but I fail to see how it's relevant to the general trend of sending production jobs overseas. I see no reason to blame the ignorance of the general public (not denying that they're ignorant) for the failure of the government to protect jobs. Unless your argument is that people are calling for a free market because they are under the false presumption that it will benefit everyone, and that they formed that opionon by using the internet (but the idea predates the internet and was popular long before it) and the only reason the government isn't protecting jobs is because of what the people want, then I get it. But I wouldn't agree with it of course.
I also do not accept your claim that information control is something that should be encouraged and I refute that the internet has made us less capable of making informed decisions. But instead of going deeper into that I'll just leave it here because I've said what I think was relevant to the topic we're discussing.

[crispybits]

Gillipig could you please explain your comment:

"Subsidized government created (not funded) businesses"

How could a government created but not funded business be subsidised except through government funding? What other funding source is going to prop up a business making massive losses just to create jobs? How does government create a business without funding it, who would own this business, and to what extent would the productive parts of the economy be further taxed or whatever in order for these massive loss-makers to survive?

It seems to me that the basic principle you're supporting here is that these businesses cannot survive under free competition, but they do provide employment for some people which is valuable. Rather than shift the emphasis onto better education (not academic, vocational) and helping peple find ways in which they can use their skills and abilities in genuinely productive and profitable ways, we'll prop up unprofitable enterprises at everyone's expense so that the people who haven't adapted and found ways to be productive can gain the illusion of productivity and worth without having to do the real work that leads to that (note, not that they wouldn't put it a hard shift of work in the widget factory, but rather that this is the wrong thing to put their effort into, when they could spend the same time and energy either training new skills, upgrading existing skills, or focusing 100% on ensuring that their current skills are used in a truly productive and profitable way...)

[Dukasaur]

I think I've worked for some "created, but not funded" businesses a couple of times.

[crispybits]

I would actually be in favour of government creating "jobs", which pay a living wage, which are all about training people to be productive and profitable within society within a reaosnable timespan (say 12 months). The focus of these jobs would have some sort of creative output (as in the costs could be off-set by these people doing some real, necessary work rather than just training 100% of the time), but the main principle and focal point would be to take your average Joe Bloggs, who previously would have been part of the manufacturing sector, and using their time, whilst supporting them financially, to gain skills and abilities which make them properly marketable within the local or national economy.

But this is very different to government creating an unsustainable sector of industry which has to be propped up for year after year by subsidies and which doesn't have the focus of changing the skillsets of the section of the population who work within it.

In the UK, in the 70s and 80s, we had a lot of domestic trouble, strikes etc, because there was a huge government owned and controlled industrial sector that was making massive losses. It dropped us into a worse recession than the one we've just had (in terms of living standards for the average citizen - things like bins not being collected for weeks on end because the collectors were on almost constant strike action). Thatcher saw that problem and corrected it by withdrawing those subsidies from those massive loss making money pits. Whatever you think of her as a person or her more general policies, the results of her looking to cut these loss making industries from the public purse and privatising (which I disagree with in some cases where essential public infrastructure is involved) did a lot to fix the economy. Anyone calling for a return to that situation has to justify why it would fix anything before I would take that suggestion seriously, because history tells us that (at least in the UK) it didn't work and it made things worse.

[demonfork]

It s quite amusing to read such a witty article then listen to what that woman has to say... Anyway, as tgd says it s better to ignore her.

That theory about black holes is pretty interesting. It s all a bit frustrating though.. Who knows if on top of regular physics and quantum mechanics astrophysicians won t find other sets of laws... At least stuff that will not depend on a given space-time referent but that could be more generalistic.. I think it s time for us to become genetically modified cyborgs. We aint gonna understand this universe otherwise.

"frustrating" is an odd choice of word there. I would say "encouraging." We have to hope that physics is wrong, because if orthodox thought is right then there will never be faster-than-light travel, and most of the interesting things that go on in other corners of the universe will forever be closed to us. If we are ever to go on intergalactic voyages of exploration and meet other intelligent races up-close-and-personal, we have to hope that Einstein got it all wrong and that faster-than-light ships are possible.

You are assuming we really need to travel the distances. We don't.

We will if we keep ruining this planet...

What I meant is, we don't necessarily need to break the light speed barrier.

I understood what you meant... Bending space, worm holes, etc...

[BigBallinStalin]

I would actually be in favour of government creating "jobs", which pay a living wage, which are all about training people to be productive and profitable within society within a reaosnable timespan (say 12 months). The focus of these jobs would have some sort of creative output (as in the costs could be off-set by these people doing some real, necessary work rather than just training 100% of the time), but the main principle and focal point would be to take your average Joe Bloggs, who previously would have been part of the manufacturing sector, and using their time, whilst supporting them financially, to gain skills and abilities which make them properly marketable within the local or national economy.

But this is very different to government creating an unsustainable sector of industry which has to be propped up for year after year by subsidies and which doesn't have the focus of changing the skillsets of the section of the population who work within it.

In the UK, in the 70s and 80s, we had a lot of domestic trouble, strikes etc, because there was a huge government owned and controlled industrial sector that was making massive losses. It dropped us into a worse recession than the one we've just had (in terms of living standards for the average citizen - things like bins not being collected for weeks on end because the collectors were on almost constant strike action). Thatcher saw that problem and corrected it by withdrawing those subsidies from those massive loss making money pits. Whatever you think of her as a person or her more general policies, the results of her looking to cut these loss making industries from the public purse and privatising (which I disagree with in some cases where essential public infrastructure is involved) did a lot to fix the economy. Anyone calling for a return to that situation has to justify why it would fix anything before I would take that suggestion seriously, because history tells us that (at least in the UK) it didn't work and it made things worse.

1. Training occurs within markets, so why rely on government?
2. Government still wouldn't create jobs--even with the training. The necessary taxation and/or borrowing deprives people of income which would have been spent on goods and investment (jobs, capital). This public policy merely results in a transfer of wealth and not the creation of jobs.
3. Also, the subsidized training for those workers could put them at a lower cost advantage compared to other workers. Thus, the government-trained workers might actually displace current workers. How's that for 'doing the right thing'?

[crispybits]

1. In situations where the market is deflated, creating jobs in this way could be beneficial to the overall economy. Of course there would be cost pressures on the public purse, but a properly run government (yet to see one) would have put something away for a rainy day during boom times...

2. Not if the government is run properly, and builds a surplus pot during the good times for use as economic stimulus (through this and other means) during the bad times

3. I fail to see how a worker will be displaced. Workers not on the scheme might lose out going for new jobs, but if you have someone in situ who knows and does the role already you're not going to hire someone else without some other reason to do so. Their skills wouldn't have any extra market value if they got them from real on-the-job training or from the government scheme.

(Yes I am assuming a fiscally responsible government to be in favour of this sort of thing, but hey we're talking about "this is the way it OUGHT to be done" so I don't see why I can't offer support that way whilst including that caveat...)

[BigBallinStalin]

(Yes I am assuming a fiscally responsible government to be in favour of this sort of thing, but hey we're talking about "this is the way it OUGHT to be done" so I don't see why I can't offer support that way whilst including that caveat...)

Assuming the Nirvana fallacy allows me to discard your position--regarding public policy. With public policy, it's dangerous to assume the imaginary. Instead, it's constructive to deal with systems as they are--not as they are idealized.

There's nothing wrong with idealizing about government, but it depends. The ideal assumption is not applicable to public policy debates, so it becomes irrelevant; however, the ideal assumption is applicable to debates on changing the rules/institutions of a government (reform). You've been talking about public policy though, not reform.

1. In situations where the market is deflated, creating jobs in this way could be beneficial to the overall economy. Of course there would be cost pressures on the public purse, but a properly run government (yet to see one) would have put something away for a rainy day during boom times...

2. Not if the government is run properly, and builds a surplus pot during the good times for use as economic stimulus (through this and other means) during the bad times

3. I fail to see how a worker will be displaced. Workers not on the scheme might lose out going for new jobs, but if you have someone in situ who knows and does the role already you're not going to hire someone else without some other reason to do so. Their skills wouldn't have any extra market value if they got them from real on-the-job training or from the government scheme.

(Yes I am assuming a fiscally responsible government to be in favour of this sort of thing, but hey we're talking about "this is the way it OUGHT to be done" so I don't see why I can't offer support that way whilst including that caveat...)

1. The jobs program still relies on taxation/deficit spending. It removes wealth from a group within the economy (taxpayers) and then shovels it onto another group in the economy--throughout a recession. Net effect on the economy? Zero (+ some negative amount involved in govt. administration).

2. Governments never do that because they lack the incentive. Their institutions have formed so that government won't 'run properly'. Regardless, your contention is irrelevant because the funding still relies on taxation/deficit spending. Taxation/deficit spending is always a transfer of wealth.

3. I wasn't clear enough. Here's a scenario:

(3a) Suppose you're an employer, and you need to hire someone. You can hire either a government-trained worker or a non-government-trained worker. Ceteris paribus, the government-trained worker is cheaper than the NGT worker, thus is more likely to get hired. The government training program has disadvantaged a group of workers, so it acts to discourage employment for a certain group of workers. (It prices the NGT workers out of a job).

[Metsfanmax]

I would actually be in favour of government creating "jobs", which pay a living wage, which are all about training people to be productive and profitable within society within a reaosnable timespan (say 12 months). The focus of these jobs would have some sort of creative output (as in the costs could be off-set by these people doing some real, necessary work rather than just training 100% of the time), but the main principle and focal point would be to take your average Joe Bloggs, who previously would have been part of the manufacturing sector, and using their time, whilst supporting them financially, to gain skills and abilities which make them properly marketable within the local or national economy.

But this is very different to government creating an unsustainable sector of industry which has to be propped up for year after year by subsidies and which doesn't have the focus of changing the skillsets of the section of the population who work within it.

In the UK, in the 70s and 80s, we had a lot of domestic trouble, strikes etc, because there was a huge government owned and controlled industrial sector that was making massive losses. It dropped us into a worse recession than the one we've just had (in terms of living standards for the average citizen - things like bins not being collected for weeks on end because the collectors were on almost constant strike action). Thatcher saw that problem and corrected it by withdrawing those subsidies from those massive loss making money pits. Whatever you think of her as a person or her more general policies, the results of her looking to cut these loss making industries from the public purse and privatising (which I disagree with in some cases where essential public infrastructure is involved) did a lot to fix the economy. Anyone calling for a return to that situation has to justify why it would fix anything before I would take that suggestion seriously, because history tells us that (at least in the UK) it didn't work and it made things worse.

1. Training occurs within markets, so why rely on government?

Do you believe we should eliminate public schools?

[BigBallinStalin]

I would actually be in favour of government creating "jobs", which pay a living wage, which are all about training people to be productive and profitable within society within a reaosnable timespan (say 12 months). The focus of these jobs would have some sort of creative output (as in the costs could be off-set by these people doing some real, necessary work rather than just training 100% of the time), but the main principle and focal point would be to take your average Joe Bloggs, who previously would have been part of the manufacturing sector, and using their time, whilst supporting them financially, to gain skills and abilities which make them properly marketable within the local or national economy.

But this is very different to government creating an unsustainable sector of industry which has to be propped up for year after year by subsidies and which doesn't have the focus of changing the skillsets of the section of the population who work within it.

In the UK, in the 70s and 80s, we had a lot of domestic trouble, strikes etc, because there was a huge government owned and controlled industrial sector that was making massive losses. It dropped us into a worse recession than the one we've just had (in terms of living standards for the average citizen - things like bins not being collected for weeks on end because the collectors were on almost constant strike action). Thatcher saw that problem and corrected it by withdrawing those subsidies from those massive loss making money pits. Whatever you think of her as a person or her more general policies, the results of her looking to cut these loss making industries from the public purse and privatising (which I disagree with in some cases where essential public infrastructure is involved) did a lot to fix the economy. Anyone calling for a return to that situation has to justify why it would fix anything before I would take that suggestion seriously, because history tells us that (at least in the UK) it didn't work and it made things worse.

1. Training occurs within markets, so why rely on government?

Do you believe we should eliminate public schools?

"Eliminated." Are you asking me if I'd want them to be immediately bulldozed?

[patches70]

No one can bring back manufacturing jobs to the US under the current monetary system because of the Triffin dilemma.

The US dollar is the reserve currency of the world and as such every nation must have a steady supply of them to purchase things (the most vital being oil, i.e. the petrodollar).

For the nations to get those dollars they must produce things to be sold to/in the US. Thus whomever holds control over the reserve currency of the world must run a trade deficit. When we run a trade deficit that means we need to be importing more goods than we are exporting, otherwise all those dollars that these nations need just end up all back in the US (which would cause serious problems as well for us, but that's a different problem than manufacturing).

Since the US cannot escape the economic consequences (nor give up the benefits) of controlling the world reserve currency, nothing done short of scrapping the monetary system will make any difference at all.

Not the subsidize/nationalize extremes of the Players of the world nor the free market laissez faire of the BBS' of the world.
Money must flow out of the US and goods flow in through the exchange.

Since this can't be avoided while we are the only nation on earth legally allowed to print the reserve currency of the world, we cannot compete in manufacturing because the vital need of other nations to acquire US dollars keeps putting downward pressure on wages in those respective countries while at the same time raising said wages in the US for the same work.
NAFTA, free trade agreements, don't matter, we can't produce many goods cheaper than other nations.

Even if we could somehow make ourselves more competitive cost wise in production of goods in manufacturing then we end up really screwing every other nation on the earth in the process to the point in which the monetary system would have to collapse. Because if we don't run those trade deficits then our status as the world reserve currency ends. If it didn't end and we regain our manufacturing power, then all these emerging nations who rely on manufacturing to acquire US dollars they need to purchase things on the market denominated in dollars, everyone loses their jobs and (even more) massive poverty and hopelessness hits them. Which causes revolution, war and violence.


The loss of our manufacturing jobs coincides with the end of Bretton Woods, Nixon's closing of the Gold window and our move to a complete fiat currency. This is just one of the negative consequences for our nation (but what's bad for us in that regard is a boon to other nations around the world, so it's a double edge sword). Things like NAFTA is just another kick to the face of an already down and out US manufacturing and no law, no best intentions or wishes can negate economic reality.

We can (and have already done) things to lessen the effects or slow the loss of manufacturing, but it's just putting a finger a hole of a collapsing dike. This effect is not a surprise, we know it was coming and was a consequence and that there is no way around this dilemma, but that doesn't stop the politicians from making promises or enacting bait and switches using "let's return manufacturing to the US" lines to get elected and no shortage of people who keep believing them.

So long as the US dollar exists in it's current form then US manufacturing must leave our shores, slowly but surely. The alternative is to halve our (the US') standard of living, giving up reserve world currency status, giving up the petrodollar, our gadgets, our thing-a-ma-bobs and our plastic widgets and start working like the rest of the world has to work and for a lot less money as well. Of course, we'd also have to figure out how to be fiscally responsible as well.

A very unlikely scenario to accomplish with being forced into it. And that force won't go over well and bodes ill for quite a lot of people, not just American citizens mind you, but implications for the world at large. The same horses will still be running except there will be all new riders and it won't be the US leading the pack.


We should be careful of what we wish for. There are no solutions, there are only trade offs. Buy into a "solution" and you'll find out latter that you weren't really willing to accept the trade off and wouldn't have if you'd of known in advance what was going to happen.

We knew exactly what we were doing creating the petro dollar and establishing the dollar as the reserve currency, crying about it now only shows a lack of understanding of what the real problems are. IMO. That is, everything is working just as it was designed to work.

Accept it or don't, it doesn't change the reality.

[Gillipig]

Gillipig could you please explain your comment:

"Subsidized government created (not funded) businesses"

How could a government created but not funded business be subsidised except through government funding? What other funding source is going to prop up a business making massive losses just to create jobs? How does government create a business without funding it, who would own this business, and to what extent would the productive parts of the economy be further taxed or whatever in order for these massive loss-makers to survive?

It seems to me that the basic principle you're supporting here is that these businesses cannot survive under free competition, but they do provide employment for some people which is valuable. Rather than shift the emphasis onto better education (not academic, vocational) and helping peple find ways in which they can use their skills and abilities in genuinely productive and profitable ways, we'll prop up unprofitable enterprises at everyone's expense so that the people who haven't adapted and found ways to be productive can gain the illusion of productivity and worth without having to do the real work that leads to that (note, not that they wouldn't put it a hard shift of work in the widget factory, but rather that this is the wrong thing to put their effort into, when they could spend the same time and energy either training new skills, upgrading existing skills, or focusing 100% on ensuring that their current skills are used in a truly productive and profitable way...)

That was just a technicality which was why I put it in a parentheses. I was differentiating between funding an already existing private company, and creating a new company which is goverment owned. You read a little it too much into it I think, I never tried to insinuate that a government-owned company like the type we're postulating could survive without the constant aid of tax payers. My argument is that it would benefit the tax payers in the long run though as it would bring back jobs that otherwise could never return.
There are some curious exceptions where goverment owned companies do so well they are net positive. Two companies here in Sweden come to mind, Svenskaspel "Swedish Gambling" (Has monopoly on many different types of betting and gambling), Systembolaget "The Alhocol company" (Also has monopoly on most types of alcohol).

Okay so now on to part 2.

It seems to me that the basic principle you're supporting here is that these businesses cannot survive under free competition, but they do provide employment for some people which is valuable.....

They can't survive under free competiton because they actually have to pay their workers. An american shoe factory which employs american workers, would have to be ridicoulusly much more effective at churning out shoes than a chinese one. And the only reason it is that way is because the chinese are payed less. Some are not even payed at all, they get food and a place to live. Why would you a) Want to compete with a country like that in the first place? And b) How would competing with them bring about prosperity for your nation? The lesson to be learned from their success is to employ factory slaves, is that something we should take after? Is it to be admired?

....Rather than shift the emphasis onto better education (not academic, vocational) and helping peple find ways in which they can use their skills and abilities in genuinely productive and profitable ways,

Sweden is, if not "the" atleast "one of" the most overeducated countries in the world so I have good insight into this argument. The type of education you're referring to will make a country more competitve in some types of production, the type of production Germany excels at. They are better educated and more effective workers than the americans, and that's why they are doing well. But U.S haven't lost the majority of it's production jobs to Germany, mimicking Germany won't bring back the jobs that are currently in China. Most production jobs can't come back by shifting focus onto education, and it's not like China isn't catching up in the advanced production industries. Soon they will probably be as skilled as the Germans, just cheaper.

we'll prop up unprofitable enterprises at everyone's expense so that the people who haven't adapted and found ways to be productive can gain the illusion of productivity and worth without having to do the real work that leads to that

At everyone's expense? There's nothing China does that America can't, it's only a question of who will make the stuff, and how much they will get payed. You wouldn't get useless toys and shoes if you moved factories back to America, only difference would be that it would cost more to buy, but then again more people would have jobs so more people could afford to buy things in the first place. Also consider that unemployment is the root to crime, production jobs that doesn't require an education can give people who otherwise couldn't find a job a chance to be part of the society. In Sweden there's almost no job that doesn't require an education of some sort, and everyone's got a college degree, so how easy is it for a non european immigrant to find a job? Impossible is the answer and that's mainly because we're an overeducated country. For immigrants in Sweden there's two choices, either you become a criminal, or you try to get by on welfare for the rest of your life.

1) How would it not benefit the U.S to produce it's own things? Especially when unemployment is high.
2) Why would it be admirable to open your market and compete with a nation that treats it's citizens poorly?

[patches70]

So you are arguing protectionism Gillip? As in ban Chinese products or put severely restrictive tariffs on Chinese imports for example?

What are the consequences of such actions?

And you understand that in the US we also have to deal with the reserve currency issues that a country such as Sweden doesn't, right?
Do you understand how that affects manufacturing in the US?

Because US dollars must flow out of the US so that other nations can do business as markets are all denominated in dollars. This puts two conflicting interests against each other in the US.

On one hand, we want our money and business to be in the US, the domestic side of the equation.
On the other hand, because of the reserve currency status, every other nation on earth requires US dollars and to get them they must produce something to sell to the US. The international pressures are trying to pull dollars out, and domestic pressures are trying to keep the dollars in.
Thus, the reason it's called the Triffin dilemma or also known as the Triffin Paradox. Those two competing interests have the effect of making manufacturing in the US much more costly in the US.

Let's say we move all the shoe factories from everywhere else in the world back to the US and virtually everything else that the US used to produce, what effect would that have on the rest of the world?

They couldn't buy US products because they'd have no US dollars because they couldn't produce anything to sell to US consumers to acquire those dollars. In order for what you are saying to function the US would have to give up her reserve currency status, and what are the implications with that?

Not to mention, if Sweden didn't get those US dollars it wouldn't matter how educated your workforce was because there would be no factories there. Even if there were they couldn't sell to the US because we'd be buying our own products and Sweden would have a shortage of US dollars to buy anything. Your high educated work force would have to move to the US to find jobs.

1) How would it not benefit the U.S to produce it's own things? Especially when unemployment is high.

What's the trade off? So the US produces it's own things, what happens to all the other countries that were producing those things? What are their workers going to do?

2) Why would it be admirable to open your market and compete with a nation that treats it's citizens poorly?

Treat it's citizens poorly? That's kind of a subjective thing don't you think? In the US someone might be- "$2 an hour? That's insane! That's slave labor!" would be the thinking, but there are countries where people would be happy with that.

You seem to be arguing against all free trade, which is OK, but what is the alternative and what problems does that cause?

The world went through it's mercantile and protectionist phases, and compared to the way trade is conducted in modern times, such forms of trade are relatively barbaric by today's standards. Such things actually caused shooting wars in the past, and would do so again.

If such concern for the people and how they are treated in other countries, why is it a good course of action to do things that will just get all those people you are concerned about to lose their jobs, despite how low paying you deem them to be? How does that help those people by taking their work away?

Do you see any negative consequences in such a line of action?

[Metsfanmax]

Do you see any unintended consequences in such a line of action?

If you know the consequences are going to happen, then they're not unintended.

[patches70]

Do you see any unintended consequences in such a line of action?

If you know the consequences are going to happen, then they're not unintended.

So is Gillip advocating throwing all those Chinese workers into the street by making them lose their jobs? That would be a consequence of some of the things he's arguing and I for one don't think he intends to cause harm to others with his ideas. Maybe he does, I don't know, I'm just asking him a question.

It's probably pretty hard to find a single case of an unintended consequence in modern times that someone didn't foresee, though we use the term unintended consequences all the time. Especially in financial matters where the supposed unintended consequences that happen all the time ever happened without a single person saying before hand "hold on a minute, there is a problem with that course of action". Often those people are just ignored and when it comes to light they were right the people who didn't listen say "unintended consequences".

But I'll rephrase the question just for you Mets, since that seems to be your only contribution or insight.

Gillip, Do you see any negative consequences in such a line of action?


Is that better Mets?

[Phatscotty]

Michelle Bachmann vs "the Independent" Bernie Sanders