ACORN

[Zenda]

Eppie "... I think Obama could be good for international relations, because he at least seems to be an intelligent person capable of normal discussions."

That's not a choice based on political views, either. A candidate doesn't need to be the most intelligent to be the best. And anyone who got far enough to be a candidate, has enough political skills of whatever type is needed in a system.

I think the choice should be based on what a candidate wants, and how good his or her ideals match your own. Looking at it that way, I'd say that McCain is the better one because he wants America to be respected by the world. His ideals might be old-fashioned, but there is a lot of good in them. Obama otoh, is very protectionistic. He will do anything that is perceived in the (economic) interest of the US, no matter the consequences for outsiders.

Eppie "And I actually think that the US and Europe will become closer again when he is elected."

Yes, at the cost of the rest of the world.

[eppie]

Zenda, could you try to use the quote option when you reply, it will be easier to read.

Eppie "... I think Obama could be good for international relations, because he at least seems to be an intelligent person capable of normal discussions."

That's not a choice based on political views, either.

No indeed it isn't. As I said in sense of political views I would vote for neither of the two.

A candidate doesn't need to be the most intelligent to be the best. And anyone who got far enough to be a candidate, has enough political skills of whatever type is needed in a system.

Of course, but they should at least have some intelligence and know what they are talking about. The choice of Palin for example by McCain is nothing else than giving the finger to the world

I think the choice should be based on what a candidate wants, and how good his or her ideals match your own.

You are absolutely right.

Looking at it that way, I'd say that McCain is the better one because he wants America to be respected by the world.

And here the respect for the president is an important factor. A lot of what many lurkers call anti-Americanism was just disrespect for Bush (and his clan). And in that sense I see Obama as a better person

His ideals might be old-fashioned, but there is a lot of good in them. Obama otoh, is very protectionistic. He will do anything that is perceived in the (economic) interest of the US, no matter the consequences for outsiders.

Looking at your own interests comes in two ways. But this also depends on ones political views. If you find foreign politics only going to war, than I'd rather see somebody doing less of it, and just stay there and look at his the US) own interests'.

Eppie "And I actually think that the US and Europe will become closer again when he is elected."

Yes, at the cost of the rest of the world.

That is an interesting statement. I thought of it as a positive thing, but you might be right. Care to elaborate on that?

[Zenda]

Eppie "could you try to use the quote option when you reply, it will be easier to read."

Could you switch to Standard View (chronological), like on forums in the rest of the world? It will be easier to read for me.

Eppie "The choice of Palin for example by McCain is nothing else than giving the finger to the world"

Did McCain make this choice, or the Republican Party?

Eppie "And here the respect for the president is an important factor."

Hardly, as long as the president does a decent job. Bush for example only deserves disrespect for being a weak and easily influenced, not for taking measures that benefit other people then yourself.

Eppie "If you find foreign politics only going to war, than I'd rather see somebody doing less of it, and just stay there and look at his the US own interests."

In McCain's view the US won't need to fight any more wars once things are settled, whereas Obama might start one if he thinks it will improve a stable situation. McCain thinks that wars are for fighting enemies, Obama knows they are for profit.

Btw, I did say that McCain would be my choice because he fits my ideas best. That doesn't mean he would be the best choice for all Americans.

Regarding US and EU coming closer together...

The socalled Free Market works by making trade agreements and shutting everyone out who doesn't want to sign. The more profitable agreements US and EU make, the more other nations will suffer. From our point of view, it has to be this way. The 'rich' countries in the world could never hope to compete economically with the 'poor' countries, if those are given equal chances. They have all the resources (we have used up ours long ago) and cheap labor, remember? So, to keep things 'fair' for us, we have import taxes and export subsidies. That way, we can keep our local markets from being flooded by cheap foreign products, and our local producers can flood foreign markets with our own cheap products. Organisations like the EU 'improve' this mechanism, by allowing members to make a better economic front. We are economic 'allies' against the rest. Since the rest included the USA, Europeans didn't exactly become more popular with Americans.

Let me take our 'beloved' Netherlands to explain a bit. We are very small, amongst the most dense populated countries, and our climate is moderate. Yet we manage to be in the world top when it comes to exporting fruits, vegetables and flowers (and that includes exotic ones). If you think about it, that's very odd. How can we compete with some African country, where they could harvest the same crops at least twice a year, with cheap labor? Over here, we need glasshouses with artificial warmth and light. The costs are enormous (in money as well as environment), and so are the prices in our groceries. And yet, we can dominate the poorer markets in the world with our cheap products.

At this point, you could note that the 'poor' countries do export a lot of goods. But what do they export? Only the things that *we* need from them (because we don't have it, or because it won't grow here, like chocolate, coffee and tea). We won't allow them to produce the things *they* need, because we would loose a huge market for our own 'cheaper' goods.

Ofcourse, this mechanism costs a lot of money (for a government, not for those receiving it). In fact, keeping the poor countries poor this way, costs roughly 10 times the amount we spent on improving the situation. But since this money is used to 'stimulate our economy', few taxpayers ever complain about it.

[--Pete]

Hi,

Eppie "could you try to use the quote option when you reply, it will be easier to read."

Could you switch to Standard View (chronological), like on forums in the rest of the world? It will be easier to read for me.

How *he* views the forum has no effect on you. Your decision not to use the quote ability *does* effect everyone trying to read your posts. In this, I have to agree with eppie.

The 'rich' countries in the world could never hope to compete economically with the 'poor' countries, if those are given equal chances.

Wrong in so many ways that it would take more effort than you are worth to explain. But, just to point out a few things:

Workers in industrial nations are many more times productive than workers in developing countries. The manpower cost is thus about the same for the two.

Most industrial countries have stringent environmental laws. Most developing countries do not. Part of their cheapness comes from destroying the environment for all.

Most industrial countries have stringent worker safety laws. Most developing countries do not. Part of their cheapness comes from destroying their citizens.

Most industrial countries have stringent consumer protection laws (that keep children's toys from being painted with lead based paints, keep pet food from being augmented with anti-freeze (or whatever), etc.) Most developing countries do not. Part of their cheapness comes from destroying their customers.

People are stupid and selfish. So, they'll buy the cheapest without considering the 'external' costs. If the costs to protect the environment, the workers, and the consumers were added to the price of things made in developing countries, those items would be more expensive than those made in the industrial nations. The tariffs imposed on those items typically represents only a small part of the difference.

They have all the resources (we have used up ours long ago)

Right, that's why they import most of their raw materials, because they have so much of their own.

Let me take our 'beloved' Netherlands to explain a bit. We are very small, amongst the most dense populated countries, and our climate is moderate. Yet we manage to be in the world top when it comes to exporting fruits, vegetables and flowers (and that includes exotic ones). If you think about it, that's very odd. How can we compete with some African country, where they could harvest the same crops at least twice a year, with cheap labor? Over here, we need glasshouses with artificial warmth and light. The costs are enormous (in money as well as environment), and so are the prices in our groceries. And yet, we can dominate the poorer markets in the world with our cheap products.

What is "odd" is your inability to think. After stating that the developing countries dominate because of cheapnes, you give a perfect example of how your statement is wrong. And yet you see nothing wrong in your thinking.

You and eppie are doing me a world of good. I thought the USA was sliding into the toilet. The two of you reassure me that we aren't alone.

--Pete

[Jester]

Could you switch to Standard View (chronological), like on forums in the rest of the world? It will be easier to read for me.

Nobody cares strictly about how you view the forums. Use whatever view suits you. What we're all kvetching about is how you reply. Use the quote feature. Hit the reply button attached to the post you're replying to, not the one attached to the big giant thread. Reply to one person at a time, and not not multiple people in one post. It's really not much bother, unless you can't be bothered at all.

-Jester

[eppie]

Workers in industrial nations are many more times productive than workers in developing countries. The manpower cost is thus about the same for the two.

Most industrial countries have stringent environmental laws. Most developing countries do not. Part of their cheapness comes from destroying the environment for all.

Most industrial countries have stringent worker safety laws. Most developing countries do not. Part of their cheapness comes from destroying their citizens.

Most industrial countries have stringent consumer protection laws (that keep children's toys from being painted with lead based paints, keep pet food from being augmented with anti-freeze (or whatever), etc.) Most developing countries do not. Part of their cheapness comes from destroying their customers.

This is of course overly simplified. So simplified that it is just wrong. OK, all your points have an effect, but a very small one. The country you had in the back of your mind when writing this was China.
And than point one is in the case just plain wrong, while the other points are true but only have a marginal effect on the price of a product, the main factor is of course the wages which can be factors lower.

Africa is a whole different case. The economies there are so far backwards that you cannot even compare them with ours. And even when you consider workers safety etc. etc. we are still not giving them a fair chance (agriculture subsidies being the major culprit here).

People are stupid and selfish. So, they'll buy the cheapest without considering the 'external' costs. If the costs to protect the environment, the workers, and the consumers were added to the price of things made in developing countries, those items would be more expensive than those made in the industrial nations.

And people in the Sahel are so worried about these things that the will chose french grain to satisfy their daily caloric needs.

You and eppie are doing me a world of good. I thought the USA was sliding into the toilet. The two of you reassure me that we aren't alone.

--Pete

That is great to hear. It was about time that you got an idea about how people think outside county property.

[kandrathe]

The choice of Palin for example by McCain is nothing else than giving the finger to the world.

In that case, Obama is the democrats giving the finger to the Clintons, and then the rest of the people of the US.

There have been VP candidates with low experience before, like Agnew. Palin has the least amount of experience for a VP candidate ever. Obama has the least amount of experience of any POTUS candidate ever. Conversely, Biden has the most amount of experience for a VP ever, and McCain is near the top for experience as a POTUS candidate. The POTUS candidate who was next closest for low experience is G.W. Bush.

But, there is the problem. We are comparing McCain to Biden, and Palin to Obama. In my thinking, at least the Republicans put their most experience person on the top of the ticket, rather than the one who hangs around the Senate breaking tie votes until the President croaks. Like I said, it's the election of the wanna-be vs the has-been.

Palin matters more than Biden, because McCain is as old as dirt. She was actually a savvy choice by Republicans, because she is very conservative which energizes that portion of the Republican base that are anti-McCain. Without that kind of lightning rod, this election would have been over the week after the RNC. Because of her, McCain is still clinging to threads 3 weeks prior to the election. As it stands today, the data I've seen pretty clearly favor Obama in popular and electoral votes.

[kandrathe]

This is of course overly simplified.

He was probably considering his audience. I think he is spot on. I've made this point before, but the entire world is losing "good manufacturing" jobs, because of automation and other process improvements. The US complains about losing good manufacturing jobs to developing nations, and while that is partly true, the bulk of manufacturing jobs lost are not due to factory migration, but rather the efficiency with which those jobs are done.

OK, all your points have an effect, but a very small one. The country you had in the back of your mind when writing this was China.

China is the biggest one, and making the most mistakes in this area. My impression is that China has traditionally placed less value on human life and human dignity, at least in the context that "the West" has framed those properties.

And than point one is in the case just plain wrong, while the other points are true but only have a marginal effect on the price of a product, the main factor is of course the wages which can be factors lower.

Sorry, you are the one who is wrong. If one person making $100/hour can make 100 widgets per hour due to efficiency of process, as opposed to 100 people paid $1/hour who make one widget per hour, then associative property of mathematics remains true. People * Wage / Product = (Nearly constant), however in recessionary times often wages fail to keep up with improvements in productivity. The classic case of "doing more with less people", which means each person is carrying a larger burden of work.

Africa is a whole different case. The economies there are so far backwards that you cannot even compare them with ours. And even when you consider workers safety etc. etc. we are still not giving them a fair chance (agriculture subsidies being the major culprit here).

Sure, depending on where you are, but by in large vast areas are still agrarian and primitively subsistence based. Many places are no different than primitive hunter / gatherer societies that formed the base of even Neanderthal societies.

[eppie]

Sorry, you are the one who is wrong. If one person making $100/hour can make 100 widgets per hour due to efficiency of process, as opposed to 100 people paid $1/hour who make one widget per hour, then associative property of mathematics remains true. People * Wage / Product = (Nearly constant),

What is that calculation proving? I can do the same; one person makes 10 widgets per hour for 100$ and in another country the makes 5 an hour for 1$/pph So that means 10 widget vs 500 widgets.

Again, Pete's example seems to point at China, but China is a bad example and for sure not a country Zenda was thinking about when writing his reaction. I understood it and I think Pete understood it as well, but he just like to rant about how stupid other people are.
China or Russia, although having much lower standards (the points mentioned by Pete) but are strong enough economies themselves. If the US or Europe start pissing of China, we will get as least the same amount of problems the Chinese get.
Many countries (among which China) have been developing helped by investments from the West (we have been discussing that often here), but many others mainly in Africa suffer from the 'closed' markets. We are of course not talking about the production of childrens toys here, but about agricultural products (mentioned in zenda's last paragraph).

[kandrathe]

What is that calculation proving? I can do the same; one person makes 10 widgets per hour for 100$ and in another country the makes 5 an hour for 1$/pph So that means 10 widget vs 500 widgets.

What I'm saying is the due to a pretty constant consumer price for a widget, industrial nations, in order to compete with cheap labor are forced to produce more widgets with less labor. For example, we still make automobiles in the US. In order to do so, we must be doing more with less. Otherwise, they would all be made in areas with lower labor costs. Making circuit boards however is expensive when you need to worry about reclamation of toxic waste, so we don't do much of that in the US.

[--Pete]

Hi,

What I'm saying is the due to a pretty constant consumer price for a widget, industrial nations, in order to compete with cheap labor are forced to produce more widgets with less labor. For example, we still make automobiles in the US. In order to do so, we must be doing more with less. Otherwise, they would all be made in areas with lower labor costs. Making circuit boards however is expensive when you need to worry about reclamation of toxic waste, so we don't do much of that in the US.

To underscore this point, not only do American auto manufacturers make cars in the USA, but so do a number of foreign manufacturers, thus indicating that, even with expensive labor, it's still cheaper to build cars here. And the reason is, of course, automation and the availability of people with skills greater than that of a monkey that can keep automated lines working.

And eppie, I don't like calling people fools in general, just when they are fools. The difference between you and me is that when someone tells me I'm wrong, I check it out. As often happens, they are right and I've learned something. From your posting on this site over the years, it's obvious you've learned nothing since you learned to suck on a tit. Whether that's stupid or stubborn doesn't matter, either way, you are a buffoon.

--Pete

[Iolair]

Hi,
...
No. You asked a rhetorical question and used that as a launching point to tell us in the USA why we do it all wrong and why you Europeans (inventors of communism, fascism, and Nazism -- all systems that believe heavily in well documented citizens) do it so damned much better.

...
--Pete

Was there a point to that very generalized remark (the 'why you Europeans' remark) other than perhaps take a stab at eppie? If the stab was the point, wouldn't it be more honest if you took the stab at eppie and not the whole population of Europe?

I find that such generalizations often make it harder to have a good relationship and I in general find it sad when I see them. It is seldom I see them lead to much good.

I often see Americans and Europeans make very broad generalizations about each other, and I find it both silly and bad for the relationship between the continents. I have met enough Americans in my life to know how much they can differ. I had hoped you, Pete, would have met enough Europeans in your life to also know how much they differ. But perhaps I was wrong?

[Zenda]

Eppie, I wouldn't bother taking this up with Pete. Despite his superior intelligence and knowledge, he obviously misunderstood. Trying to explain will propably only lead to more unpleasantries.

I will comment on the following, though.

"Most industrial countries have stringent environmental laws. Most developing countries do not.
Most industrial countries have stringent worker safety laws. Most developing countries do not."

Let's see how we deal with this 'unfair' situation, for example regarding Mercury. It's a poisonous and volatile liquid in pure form, and has to be dealt with under strict and costly regulations, here. So, we dump our Mercury containing waste in countries like Bangla-Desh, telling them they can make a profit by recollecting that precious metal, and create 'recycling industry jobs'. That way, we can keep our own country clean and help in their development, at the same time, isn't it? However, we don't tell them in advance how expensive the proper equipment will be. They end up doing it by manual (child) labour in open air, and the result is a lot of sick people over there, and a ruined soil. Sure, you can blame them for taking the deal, but did anyone really expect them to prefer starvation?

[--Pete]

Hi,

Was there a point to that very generalized remark (the 'why you Europeans' remark) other than perhaps take a stab at eppie? If the stab was the point, wouldn't it be more honest if you took the stab at eppie and not the whole population of Europe?

I find that such generalizations often make it harder to have a good relationship and I in general find it sad when I see them. It is seldom I see them lead to much good.

I often see Americans and Europeans make very broad generalizations about each other, and I find it both silly and bad for the relationship between the continents. I have met enough Americans in my life to know how much they can differ. I had hoped you, Pete, would have met enough Europeans in your life to also know how much they differ. But perhaps I was wrong?

To begin with, since I was born in Florence, I am somewhat familiar with at least one European. My impression of the European attitude is based from a combination of watching European television (mostly the news in English (BBC), Italian, and Spanish since those are the only modern languages that I can follow when I hear them). I stopped subscribing to European magazines and newspapers some few years ago, but over the decades I'd taken German and French periodicals as well as Italian (never found a Spanish periodical that was worth the postage). I haven't been to Europe since the mid '60s (I hate to travel) but I do have European friends with whom I often argue. I am quite well aware of the *general* attitude of most of Europe toward *my* country (and I chose to be an American over Italian, British, or Polish -- which were my other choices). So, no, it was not just pointed at eppie. I have met many people from Europe whom I like and respect, but that does not extend to the generic "European".

I'm sorry if it bothers you, but you'll just have to deal with it or ignore me. The behavior of Europeans has forced me to change from thinking Europe was superior in mores and culture to finding it inferior (and irritating and insulting). It will take a change in the Europeans and their attitudes before you'll see a change in me.

--Pete

[--Pete]

Hi,

. . . we dump our Mercury containing waste in countries like Bangla-Desh, telling them they can make a profit by recollecting that precious metal, and create 'recycling industry jobs'.

Who is this "we" you speak of? And, do you have any proof of this allegation?

Do poor countries buy the waste of rich ones? Yes. Would it be better for the rich ones to refuse to sell their recyclable materials? Maybe, it is a complex issue. There are bad effects, like the mercury (and even more the lead from recycling circuit boards and components). There are good effects, in that the recyclable raw materials are the basis for some of the little economy some of these countries have.

Have the rich counties set up the poor ones? You imply that they did, I think you are full of crap. To some extent, we may have turned a blind eye. But we cannot legislate what those countries can and cannot do. If they buy the materials with the promise that they will process it safely, and then fail in that process, what do you think should be done? Perhaps nuke them and eliminate the whole problem?

--Pete

[Zenda]

You might want to consider trying arguments that cannot be explained in favor of what I said, Pete, if you want to discuss this matter.

[--Pete]

Bah! ~Hi

You might want to consider trying arguments that cannot be explained in favor of what I said, Pete, if you want to discuss this matter.

You made a claim, that some *we* forced third world children to become sick processing our toxic wastes. I asked you to give some proof of the claim. I repeat, put up or shut up.

--Pete

[kandrathe]

That is ok. I've resigned myself to living in a kakistocracy. The people have been getting what they deserve because even the ones that do vote have a) no idea what government is supposed to do, b) no idea who a good candidate is, and c) nary a care that they are so fargin ignorant.

[eppie]

Hi,
Who is this "we" you speak of? And, do you have any proof of this allegation?

Do poor countries buy the waste of rich ones? Yes. Would it be better for the rich ones to refuse to sell their recyclable materials? Maybe, it is a complex issue. There are bad effects, like the mercury (and even more the lead from recycling circuit boards and components). There are good effects, in that the recyclable raw materials are the basis for some of the little economy some of these countries have.

Have the rich counties set up the poor ones? You imply that they did, I think you are full of crap. To some extent, we may have turned a blind eye. But we cannot legislate what those countries can and cannot do. If they buy the materials with the promise that they will process it safely, and then fail in that process, what do you think should be done? Perhaps nuke them and eliminate the whole problem?

--Pete

This is really sick. Seems that you picked up some tricks in central Italy (the Arkansas of Europe) after all.
SO how would you suggest a poor Indian or Bangladeshi that is fighting to stay alive makes a market conform calculation of the costs to dismantle an old ship?
In many first world countries when you sell somebody something (your house e.g.) should make them aware of the problems there are with the house (water leakage, rotten floors etc.), because a development countries don't have these laws and because as you rightfully say it is the only way to keep their economies running it is fine for us to send our wast there because we can get rid of it cheaper?


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_pictures/3558527.stm


Other waste like appliances, computers etc. is usually send there more illegally (even in our own laws) but governments are hardly cracking down on the people that do this.

If they buy the materials with the promise that they will process it safely

Are you serious?? What about sense of judgment? If you strand a ship on the coast in India, you know that they will not process it safely.

[eppie]

Hi,
To begin with, since I was born in Florence, I am somewhat familiar with at least one European.

SO I am not sure about your age but was this during Mussolini's reign? Even if it was after that I am sure you are aware that even nowadays but for sure in the 60s and before, facsism was still popular in those parts of europe.

I haven't been to Europe since the mid '60s (I hate to travel) but I do have European friends with whom I often argue.

O that is fine, nothing really changed, I guess you still have the basic idea.

I am quite well aware of the *general* attitude of most of Europe toward *my* country

Haha, and what is that general attitude? You'll see that in Poland 80% is very pro USA, Italy divided in very pro and very con (fascists pro, communists con), but in general people don't have strong opinions perse. Mainly as I tried to explain very often, GWBush hasn't made a great impression on many europeans .But that is not anti US feeling, it is anti neo con.

For somebody so smart you generalize an awful lot Pete.