|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
 Posted: Wed Jun 29, 2016 6:21 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Leon wrote: |
| Sometimes the actual experts are right and get ignored in favor of people with the right view point, such as during the lead up to the Iraq War. |
Legitimate.
| Leon wrote: |
| Also, if my understanding of the WTO is correct, they don't have grounds to not trade with those countries, it's just now they have to renegotiate terms as an outside state, and probably will end up with roughly the same terms as before they left. |
Truth be told, I don't know enough about the World Trade Organization to properly assess it and whether or not it's a genuine asset to any particular society.
| Leon wrote: |
One thing about modern trade deals is that they do include things like labor regulations that try to iron out these differences, and why it makes more sense for the US to have a FTA with Jaan than China. Perhaps the EU makes more sense with out many of the former Soviet states, if considered from an economic rather than security view point. |
I suspect that a tigher, smaller union of more economically equal states would have turned out both better in general, and perhaps more to the British people's liking specifically. The impact of Eastern European inclusion has been a complaint featured in British media.
| Leon wrote: |
| Also, I guess I'd ask if you see any utility to lower prices? |
It depends entirely how those lower prices are achieved. Let's say you manage to lower prices by reducing material costs, or by making the production process consume less time. In either case, you've achieved a genuine increase in the efficiency of the process, and that comes with some real societal utility. It is only when prices are lowered at the direct expense of the common, working citizen that I find grounds to object on their behalf. "Let's fire our citizen workforce and pay foreigners less to do the same thing," is not an increase in efficiency, it is the exclusion of your fellow citizens from the process for the sake of your own enrichment. Unless, of course, you're willing to be taxed more heavily in order to continue to provide a means of prosperity to those citizens, but in that case the very motive for outsourcing labor in the first place (personal enrichment) evaporates.
| Leon wrote: |
| That benefit is spread throughout society, including to the people hurt by outsourcing ... |
It only benefits the people hurt by outsourcing if the drop in costs exceeds the drop in their wages. But just as increasing their wages by 10% would increase total cost by less than 10%, decreasing their wages by 10% would decrease costs by less than 10%, so just in terms of basic mathematics, outsourcing is unlikely to actually provide them a net benefit, especially since not all goods and services do decrease in price on account of outsourcing. Housing, education, and health care have each substantially increased in price even as wages have stagnated, for example.
| Leon wrote: |
| but protectionism imposes a cost on all of society (albeit a relatively shallow cost) and deeply benefits a smaller number of people. |
It benefits a portion of the population deeply, but their increased salaries and economic stability pays secondary dividends as well. Your neighbor earning more, and having a more stable job, makes it more likely that you'll also be able to achieve the same. Again, this is how places like Detroit end up falling apart: you take out a cornerstone that "deeply benefits a smaller number of people," and it sets off a kind of domino effect. Modern society has embraced the logic of competition so thoroughly and fundamentally that it has forgotten the logic of cooperation. This comes back to some extent to that question of loyalty: how can you effectively cooperate in the long term absent loyalty? It's psychologically difficult, and that leads to the kind of absurd pettiness which declares, "I don't want the minimum wage to rise because then my hamburger might be a bit more expensive."
| Leon wrote: |
| Also, I guess I don't see why I should be torn up by the fact that trade with China has allowed historic amounts of people there to rise out of poverty. By the way, as China grows richer their labor cost rises and manufacturing jobs start being localized again, so it is not like a permanent state of affairs. |
If you want to take a supremely cosmopolitan view and say that you view the welfare of the Chinese as completely equal to and interchangeable with the welfare of your countrymen, and you really mean that in the depths of your heart rather than as a rhetorical trick, I certainly won't object to the compassion displayed. Said compassion would be more impressive, though, if it were your livelihood being sacrificed for the sake of that Chinese welfare, rather than that of your fellow citizens. It's easy to be generous when it's other people's welfare and livelihoods which are on the line, after all, and it's hardly surprising if your fellow citizens then look at you, realize how you feel, and then inform you that they want you to have no further influence on their affairs, showing you the exact same loyalty which you showed them. Indeed, this is exactly the attitude I suggested had an impact on the British desire to leave the European Union, with the average British worker feeling that the leaders of the European Union did not hold their interests dear. Traditionally, such universal views were better held by monks, priests, and cynics than by politicians, because while the former may make philanthropy his end, the latter is tasked with overseeing a particular society. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Leon
Joined: 31 May 2010
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 29, 2016 6:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
So it seems that some of the more prominent supporters of the leave campaign didn't plan on winning. I think the way this was presented to the people in the UK were scammed.
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/06/29/world/europe/boris-johnson-brexit-leaders-eu.html
"With their giddy celebrations of “independence day” having given way to political and economic turmoil, one thing has become especially clear about the former London mayor Boris Johnson and other leaders of the successful campaign to vote Britain out of the European Union: They had no plan for what comes next.....
The stakes are high for Mr. Johnson in particular, as he tries to build an impression as a capable leader amid the chaos that followed the vote in favor of a British exit, or “Brexit.” But the mixed signals coming from him and other proponents of leaving the European Union have left their intentions unclear on such basic issues as when and how they will seek to negotiate a withdrawal, and what kind of new arrangement they want. To the degree that they have signaled a direction, it has often been substantially different from what they promised during the campaign.
On issues from immigration to spending on the National Health Service, the “Leave” coalition has retreated from its more populist and apparently exaggerated claims. Many of those assertions had been promoted by the right-wing U.K. Independence Party, or UKIP, led by Nigel Farage, and benefited the broader Leave campaign, whose most prominent figures included two senior Conservatives, Mr. Johnson and Michael Gove, the justice minister.....
In his regular column in The Daily Telegraph on Monday, Mr. Johnson tried to strike a prime ministerial tone of unity in the wake of the divisive referendum, but he emphasized continuity over change and tried to argue that immigration, clearly the primary motivation for many voters in taking a position against Europe, was somehow not a major issue.
“It is said that those who voted Leave were mainly driven by anxieties about immigration,” Mr. Johnson wrote. “I do not believe that is so.”
Suggesting that he wants to keep some kind of open flow of people across the border with Europe, Mr. Johnson wrote, “British people will still be able to go and work in the E.U.; to live; to travel; to study; to buy homes and to settle down.”
Not only that, he asserted, “There will continue to be free trade, and access to the single market.”
What he described was a relationship with the European Union like that of Norway, which would allow freedom of movement and labor and would pay money to Brussels in return for access to the single market, but without having a voice in decision-making.
But Mr. Johnson rejected the Norway model during the campaign, and even if negotiations proved to lead to a slightly enhanced Norway, with some symbolic measures to restrict immigration of European Union citizens to Britain, the result would be a betrayal of those who voted Leave. And right now, Norway pays Brussels roughly per capita what Britain currently does as a full member."[/quote] |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 29, 2016 6:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Leon wrote: |
As an aside, I think I mentioned it to you before, but I think you would appreciate Polyani's the great transformation. It goes into a lot of detail on my last point, but doesn't necessarily reach the same conclusions as I have. He also argues that treating human labor and land as a commodity is not a natural state of affairs in human history, but an artificial one created by the market society- which seems like an argument you would appreciate. |
I'll keep it in mind, but I already have a backlog of books, and my real interest in economics as a field of study in itself is limited, so I cannot promise I will have time to read it soon. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leon
Joined: 31 May 2010
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 29, 2016 6:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
If you want to take a supremely cosmopolitan view and say that you view the welfare of the Chinese as completely equal to and interchangeable with the welfare of your countrymen, and you really mean that in the depths of your heart rather than as a rhetorical trick, I certainly won't object to the compassion displayed. Said compassion would be more impressive, though, if it were your livelihood being sacrificed for the sake of that Chinese welfare, rather than that of your fellow citizens. It's easy to be generous when it's other people's welfare and livelihoods which are on the line, after all, and it's hardly surprising if your fellow citizens then look at you, realize how you feel, and then inform you that they want you to have no further influence on their affairs, showing you the exact same loyalty which you showed them. Indeed, this is exactly the attitude I suggested had an impact on the British desire to leave the European Union, with the average British worker feeling that the leaders of the European Union did not hold their interests dear. Traditionally, such universal views were better held by monks, priests, and cynics than by politicians, because while the former may make philanthropy his end, the latter is tasked with overseeing a particular society. |
Your right, I will never be outsourced and an immigrant will never replace me. I will never know what that feels like. However, as I posted and you ignored, even as manufacturing output has increased the jobs haven't kept pace, why chose a short term solution that will leave these people out to dry. In addition, it's not just manufacturing that made life good for the middle class decades ago, it was unionism. That's been killed by Thatcher in the UK and by Reagan in the U.S. Maybe your an optimist and believe that can be brought back after they leave, but I very much doubt it will be. That's not my preference, that's my pessimism. Lastly, quit doubting my motivatons and portraying yours as more benevolent.
Last edited by Leon on Wed Jun 29, 2016 7:02 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leon
Joined: 31 May 2010
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 29, 2016 6:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| Leon wrote: |
As an aside, I think I mentioned it to you before, but I think you would appreciate Polyani's the great transformation. It goes into a lot of detail on my last point, but doesn't necessarily reach the same conclusions as I have. He also argues that treating human labor and land as a commodity is not a natural state of affairs in human history, but an artificial one created by the market society- which seems like an argument you would appreciate. |
I'll keep it in mind, but I already have a backlog of books, and my real interest in economics as a field of study in itself is limited, so I cannot promise I will have time to read it soon. |
Fair enough. It's not really about economics per se and more about the effects economic systems have on society. Anyways, a particularly relevant point is his idea of a double movement. Basically, free market absolutism was a huan invention that created unnatural stresses and human relations. The movement towards that system resulted in a counter movement towards labor reforms, regulations and push back. I see this rise of populism as a similar phenomenon with globalization a similar stressor. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 29, 2016 7:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Leon wrote: |
| However, as I posted and you ignored, even as manufacturing output has increased the jobs haven't kept pace, why chose a short term solution that will leave these people out to dry. |
Because talking about how "the jobs haven't kept pace" in an era of systematic overseas outsourcing doesn't strike me as especially salient when the topic of discussion is whether to tolerate said outsourcing. There's a reason the article which you posted glosses right over its own admission that the phenomenon in question is "in part because offshoring has sent many low-value jobs overseas," after all. Why isn't that discussed more in depth, and why do you expect me to take the article in question seriously absent such a discussion? If you post transparent trade-fundamentalism propaganda to me, yes, I will let it pass by without comment, because the alternative is to return to scolding you for letting these people do your thinking for you, and you've already complained about that.
If jobs are genuinely lost to automation, fine: tax the companies the difference between the cost of automation and the cost of paying a human worker, and invest it in other socially beneficial projects such as the infrastructure improvements you yourself suggested, or if the dividends are great enough, even into a basic income program. Great. But if jobs are being merely redirected overseas, well, I've already adequately expressed my thoughts about that I think.
| Leon wrote: |
| In addition, it's not just manufacturing that made life good for the middle class decades ago, it was unionism. That's been killed by Thatcher in the UK and by Reagan in the U.S. |
Correct, but the benefits of unionism, whether they are achieved directly through union activity or indirectly through broader legislative policy, cannot be fully realized when manufacturers are allowed to simply move their factories overseas without consequence, which is why unionism has hung on better in the public sector than in the private. Yet again you're using the results of trade fundamentalism to argue in favor of trade fundamentalist policy, even while insisting (honestly, I want to believe) that you're no trade fundamentalist. We had protectionism, we had unionism, it worked reasonably well, people lived well, and now that we've abandoned it, the same is not true. Why can't we go back to that? No one has ever adequately explained that. How is a bigger United States population which is more efficient at producing goods and services less able to provide for itself and its citizens, such that it needs to latch onto trade so desperately and fails to afford so many of its citizens access to stable prosperity? Or phrased otherwise, why should one argue so aggressively in favor of the status quo and reject a set of policies with a history of proven success until they were, as the arguer himself admits, intentionally dismantled by certain ideologically-driven political actors?
| Leon wrote: |
| Lastly, quit doubting my motivatons and portraying yours as more benevolent. |
Putting aside the fact that I generously entertained the reality of your cosmopolitan concern for the Chinese, which is the exact opposite of doubting your motivations, if you want me to stop expressing some particular sentiment, then refrain from voicing opinions which result in me feeling the need to do so. If you want to speak with me, Leon, I will say what I honestly think, and I expect the same from you; that has been my policy here for years. Perhaps you don't care about my perceptions regarding that matter, and if so, it should be no problem to ignore comments of that nature. In fact, I'd recommend reconsidering your entire motive for having this converseation if you're so disinterested in my evaluation that you're literally insisting I stop sharing it with you. Your patience seems to be wearing thin, something for which I don't blame you given that I'm not an easy person with whom to talk, but there's no reason to waste time if you aren't actually getting anything from the conversation. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 29, 2016 8:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| And as an aside, I don't remember ever comparing our respective degree of benevolence. I've talked about what seems to me to be public policy that would put at its center the welfare of the common citizen, but what have I personally done to make such policy a reality? Nothing, nor will I, so where is the benevolence in that? My focus is on self-rectification, and while part of that improvement involves avoiding harm to my fellow man, I generally do not go out of my way to help others unless they ask for my assistance (in which case, I find I have a very hard time refusing). However my project can be described, it is not as benevolent, and if would not surprise me if you did more for your fellow man than I did on a personal level. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Swartz
Joined: 19 Dec 2014
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 29, 2016 9:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Now that's what I call a rout.
Leon can't think for himself, and there's nothing wrong with anyone happening to notice that. I've been saying it too. His thoughts have been passed down to him by the network of liars who are cheating Europeans out of their livelihoods and destroying their nations by selling out their industries/jobs and turning their homelands into free trade shopping zones. Fox dismantled Leon's argument several times over, but Leon just keeps trucking on because he doesn't want to learn. People like him don't seek truth, they avoid heresy. An ethnic nationalist like myself finds it particularly pathetic and disgusting to see how individuals like Leon, who apply an exaggerated air of depth to themselves, simply cannot evolve intellectually, learn from their argumentative failures, or realize how destructive the things they promote ultimately are. They aren't benevolent, their allegiance is to something else, something selfish, harmful, abstract, and empty. Real irony being that a Jew is often the most adept at illustrating these deficiencies in ourselves on here. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Plain Meaning
Joined: 18 Oct 2014
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 30, 2016 1:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Leon wrote: |
So it seems that some of the more prominent supporters of the leave campaign didn't plan on winning. I think the way this was presented to the people in the UK were scammed.
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/06/29/world/europe/boris-johnson-brexit-leaders-eu.html
. . .
In his regular column in The Daily Telegraph on Monday, Mr. Johnson tried to strike a prime ministerial tone of unity in the wake of the divisive referendum, but he emphasized continuity over change and tried to argue that immigration, clearly the primary motivation for many voters in taking a position against Europe, was somehow not a major issue.
“It is said that those who voted Leave were mainly driven by anxieties about immigration,” Mr. Johnson wrote. “I do not believe that is so.”
Suggesting that he wants to keep some kind of open flow of people across the border with Europe, Mr. Johnson wrote, “British people will still be able to go and work in the E.U.; to live; to travel; to study; to buy homes and to settle down.” |
Boris Johnson is right, and his tone is responsible given the situation. A 51.8% result in favor of 'Leave' is the narrowest of mandates, particularly when you consider the returns from Scotland and Northern Ireland were strongly 'Remain.' At most, Boris Johnson has to invoke Article 50. Arguably, the returns in Scotland, and Scotland's threatened secession, mean he would not have to do that in the case where Scotland objects to invoking Article 50. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leon
Joined: 31 May 2010
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 30, 2016 2:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Swartz wrote: |
Now that's what I call a rout.
Leon can't think for himself, and there's nothing wrong with anyone happening to notice that. I've been saying it too. His thoughts have been passed down to him by the network of liars who are cheating Europeans out of their livelihoods and destroying their nations by selling out their industries/jobs and turning their homelands into free trade shopping zones. Fox dismantled Leon's argument several times over, but Leon just keeps trucking on because he doesn't want to learn. People like him don't seek truth, they avoid heresy. An ethnic nationalist like myself finds it particularly pathetic and disgusting to see how individuals like Leon, who apply an exaggerated air of depth to themselves, simply cannot evolve intellectually, learn from their argumentative failures, or realize how destructive the things they promote ultimately are. They aren't benevolent, their allegiance is to something else, something selfish, harmful, abstract, and empty. Real irony being that a Jew is often the most adept at illustrating these deficiencies in ourselves on here. |
Why don't you post another meme, or link to the same book that everyone with your views link to, or repeat the same talking point about the Jews that you got from said book or blog, and come back to me about thinking for ourselves.
You have often mentioned me copying you, and you being confused by it. do you remember that one of the first things I told you was that you have an unearned sense of superiority?
| Swartz wrote: |
| exaggerated air of depth to themselves, |
I'm hearing echoes Swartz.
Last edited by Leon on Thu Jun 30, 2016 3:04 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leon
Joined: 31 May 2010
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 30, 2016 2:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Plain Meaning wrote: |
| Leon wrote: |
So it seems that some of the more prominent supporters of the leave campaign didn't plan on winning. I think the way this was presented to the people in the UK were scammed.
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/06/29/world/europe/boris-johnson-brexit-leaders-eu.html
. . .
In his regular column in The Daily Telegraph on Monday, Mr. Johnson tried to strike a prime ministerial tone of unity in the wake of the divisive referendum, but he emphasized continuity over change and tried to argue that immigration, clearly the primary motivation for many voters in taking a position against Europe, was somehow not a major issue.
“It is said that those who voted Leave were mainly driven by anxieties about immigration,” Mr. Johnson wrote. “I do not believe that is so.”
Suggesting that he wants to keep some kind of open flow of people across the border with Europe, Mr. Johnson wrote, “British people will still be able to go and work in the E.U.; to live; to travel; to study; to buy homes and to settle down.” |
Boris Johnson is right, and his tone is responsible given the situation. A 51.8% result in favor of 'Leave' is the narrowest of mandates, particularly when you consider the returns from Scotland and Northern Ireland were strongly 'Remain.' At most, Boris Johnson has to invoke Article 50. Arguably, the returns in Scotland, and Scotland's threatened secession, mean he would not have to do that in the case where Scotland objects to invoking Article 50. |
Funny how they got "responsible" with language after and not before the vote. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leon
Joined: 31 May 2010
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 30, 2016 3:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| And as an aside, I don't remember ever comparing our respective degree of benevolence. I've talked about what seems to me to be public policy that would put at its center the welfare of the common citizen, but what have I personally done to make such policy a reality? Nothing, nor will I, so where is the benevolence in that? My focus is on self-rectification, and while part of that improvement involves avoiding harm to my fellow man, I generally do not go out of my way to help others unless they ask for my assistance (in which case, I find I have a very hard time refusing). However my project can be described, it is not as benevolent, and if would not surprise me if you did more for your fellow man than I did on a personal level. |
I am getting something from the conversation, I don't think about trade often. At work sometimes I have to deal with trade restrictions on sensitive technology, but that is hardly the same. DC is a pretty one note place when it comes to trade, and I think it's obvious most people in the city don't care about the poor that much. I truly get your concern and why you think it would work. I think it would not. I also think that at the very least the UK will lose manufacturing jobs for the next 5-10 years because protectionism raises the costs of exports, Than what incentive would major countries have to build factories or employ there? To cater to the 55 million English vs. the whole EU? Especially when countries operating in the UK have done so because they see it as a gateway to the EU market. You say it would be short term pain for long term gain, well ok, I disagree. Let's leave it there. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Plain Meaning
Joined: 18 Oct 2014
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 30, 2016 3:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Swartz wrote: |
| Leon can't think for himself, and there's nothing wrong with anyone happening to notice that. I've been saying it too. |
Everytime you insult someone, everyone should understand that you are really talking about yourself. That's why you go around peddling Kevin McDonald in the desperate hope that hating Jews will go mainstream. It probably will not and you will be stuck here insulting people because you utterly fail at persuasion. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Cosmic Hum
Joined: 09 May 2003
Location: Sonic Space
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 30, 2016 6:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Plain Meaning wrote: |
| Swartz wrote: |
| Leon can't think for himself, and there's nothing wrong with anyone happening to notice that. I've been saying it too. |
Everytime you insult someone, everyone should understand that you are really talking about yourself. That's why you go around peddling Kevin McDonald in the desperate hope that hating Jews will go mainstream. It probably will not and you will be stuck here insulting people because you utterly fail at persuasion. |
Some people seem immune to persuasion. Unfortunately, the placticity of their mind has hardened into belief systems.They do not venture far from the paths beaten into them by their educators.
To communicate at all with this type of person, contradiction is sufficient. This, at least, avoids unintended agreement.
Qui tacet consentire videtur. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Swartz
Joined: 19 Dec 2014
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 30, 2016 7:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Leon wrote: |
| Swartz wrote: |
Now that's what I call a rout.
Leon can't think for himself, and there's nothing wrong with anyone happening to notice that. I've been saying it too. His thoughts have been passed down to him by the network of liars who are cheating Europeans out of their livelihoods and destroying their nations by selling out their industries/jobs and turning their homelands into free trade shopping zones. Fox dismantled Leon's argument several times over, but Leon just keeps trucking on because he doesn't want to learn. People like him don't seek truth, they avoid heresy. An ethnic nationalist like myself finds it particularly pathetic and disgusting to see how individuals like Leon, who apply an exaggerated air of depth to themselves, simply cannot evolve intellectually, learn from their argumentative failures, or realize how destructive the things they promote ultimately are. They aren't benevolent, their allegiance is to something else, something selfish, harmful, abstract, and empty. Real irony being that a Jew is often the most adept at illustrating these deficiencies in ourselves on here. |
Why don't you post another meme, or link to the same book that everyone with your views link to, or repeat the same talking point about the Jews that you got from said book or blog, and come back to me about thinking for ourselves.
You have often mentioned me copying you, and you being confused by it. do you remember that one of the first things I told you was that you have an unearned sense of superiority?
| Swartz wrote: |
| exaggerated air of depth to themselves, |
I'm hearing echoes Swartz. |
Or why don't you learn from it, Leon? I'm clearly not the only one who notices this aspect of your character. Like I said before, you aren't a serious thinker, just a mundane talker. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
