Capitalism Guarantees Rising Inequality

[gnarlylove]

I think you don't understand capitalism then. The reason the rich people are rich is because they earned it. SO what did they do to earn it? Outsourcing. They threatened and in many cases did leave the US to build factories in low wage areas. This allowed them to marginally reduce the price to consumers which was a bonus to the average person but given wages were 5-10 dollars less per hour, they were able to reap the obvious profits from such a move. Soon the overhead was paid for by the cheap labor and the profits never stopped rolling. Hence, outsourcing is a masterful success according to capitalism.

Typically whiny socialist pap.
Meaningless ad hominem. Provides no relevant information to the matter at hand: capitalism

Not all or even most wealthy peeps own factories and not all or even most American firms outsource to foreign countries.
Assuming this is true, it has no relevancy to the fact that American jobs have been outsourced at the behest of the adorable profit motive. And it also aligns with the fact real wages have stagnated since the 70s--companies don't have to pay rising wages anymore. They can simply make more profit elsewhere if the pampered American worker won't accept it, and they in fact do.

Americans get wealthy by selling their services, skills and products competitively in the global market
If you are implying all Americans who become wealthy do so based on merit, you are obviously leaving how a significant portion become rich: inheritance...the opposite of merit. Do you have any data suggesting otherwise? I may be wrong and would love to see what you're trying to say here.

and no amount of socialist whining will make you wealthy.
You finish strong with another hollow personal attack, which is evidently unrelated to how outsourcing has effected people and communities i.e. deficit of good paying jobs in the Rust Belt leading to drug related crime sky rocket and drug overdoses to increase 200 fold over the last two decades.

 

[Andylusion]

Actually several of us did, with links, proving that the Mae/Mac and bank regulaters did in fact insist on sub prime loans, and our current left wing president sued to insure they did so as a lawyer in Illinois.

Sub prime loans with or without loan standards like employment history, income, down payments, credit rating, and assets?

Do you agree with the following timeline?

"1997–2005:Mortgage fraud increased by 1,411 percent.[32]
2000–2003: Early 2000s recession (exact time varies by country).
2001–2005: United States housing bubble (part of the world housing bubble).
2001: US Federal Reserve lowers Federal funds rate eleven times, from 6.5% to 1.75%.[33]
2002–2003: Mortgage denial rate of 14 percent for conventional home purchase loans, half of 1997..."

"2003-2007: The Federal Reserve failed to use its supervisory and regulatory authority over banks, mortgage underwriters and other lenders, who abandoned loan standards (employment history, income, down payments, credit rating, assets, property loan-to-value ratio and debt-servicing ability), emphasizing instead lender's ability to securitize and repackage subprime loans.[28]
2004:

"U.S. homeownership rate peaked with an all time high of 69.2 percent.[38]
HUD increased Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac affordable-housing goals for next four years, from 50 percent to 56 percent, stating they lagged behind the private market; from 2004 to 2006, they purchased $434 billion in securities backed by subprime loans.[16]

"October:SEC effectively suspends net capital rule for five firms - Goldman Sachs, Merrill Lynch, Lehman Brothers, Bear Stearns and Morgan Stanley. Freed from government-imposed limits on the debt they can assume, they levered up 20, 30 and even 40 to 1.[39]"

Timeline of the United States housing bubble - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Federal Reserve failed to use its supervisory and regulatory authority over banks, mortgage underwriters and other lenders, who abandoned loan standards

Standards were lowered? Sounds familiar.

More importantly, the Federal Government isn't going to condemn itself.

See, if the Federal Reserve, or any agent of the government anywhere, was to attack the banks for making these loans, the biggest abuser of that was Freddie and Fannie.

You can't say "Countrywide, these loans you are making are very bad", and then not expect Countrywide to respond "Um.... These are the same loans that Fannie Mae is buying from us.... is what they are doing bad?"

And once that started there would be a political bomb going off. Because you can't look at two different banks, and say X is bad for you, but X is good for government.

Remember, Government was directly suing banks to make these loans. If the Federal Reserve started saying "ok all those loans Clinton was suing people to make, are bad." There would be a tidal wave of political blow back. There's no way Alan Greenspan was going to hang himself intentionally.

 

[Zombie_Pundit]

New construction, should ALWAYS be cheaper than buying an existing house. Think about it..... if it wasn't..... no one would ever build a house.

Argument from incredulity
That's an absurd assumption. Someone might build a house because they want a brand new house, or specific customization, or for whatever reason they want what they want.

Build or Buy? A Housing Market Dilemma - US News

What construction company would build residential housing...... if the cost of building the house, was higher than (or even equal to) the market price?

Argument from incredulity
The type that incorrectly calculates what that market value is. Have you never seen a construction company abandon a residential housing project, specifically because the market did not bear what they originally thought it would?
9 Worst Recession Ghost Towns in America | The Fiscal Times

Androw, simply because you cannot imagine it existing does not mean it does not exist.

What individual would ever build a home, if the cost to hire someone to build the home, was greater than the home would be worth on the market?

Argument from incredulity
The new owners may not know how gaudy and odd their tastes are. Maybe they thought it was a good idea to build a house that looked like an igloo? Just a possibility. I've seen some ugly specialty built houses.

If they could find a similar home, for the same or lower price, why would they build one?

If the consumer can find two fungible products that the consumer wants; then yes, generally consumer will purchase the cheaper one.

So logically...... Construction is always going to be lower than the fair market value of the resulting home.

Classic faulty syllogism.

In fact.... one of the reasons people knew there was a bubble, was because the market prices were so much higher than construction prices, they were saying you could build an empty lot, and build TWO homes for the cost of buying one existing home.

I would be interested in you substantiating that assertion.

 

[Andylusion]

The business journal Bloomberg Businessweek points out that the country of Denmark has a minimum pay rate of the equivalent of about $20 an hour, but its business climate is sufficiently healthy for the World Bank to ranked it as the easiest place in Europe to do business in 2011, 2012, and 2013. Denmark is also "among the leading countries in income equality and national happiness." Denmark also had a lower unemployment rate (6.8%) and higher labor participation rate (64.4%) than the United States (7.4%, 63.6% as of September 2013) where the minimum wage is far lower ($7.25).

Minimum wage - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Yep, and it is one of the proofs of capitalism working. Thanks for reminding me. We do need higher wages for our less wealthy in my opinion.

I think you don't understand capitalism then. The reason the rich people are rich is because they earned it. SO what did they do to earn it? Outsourcing.

Now you are just spewing bull crap. Seriously, why do you say these things when we all know it's not true?

First off, outsource supplies jobs to other people. Either way, that CEO supplies jobs, doesn't he? Are are you so racist that only Americans deserve jobs? You keep talking about how other 3rd world countries need jobs, and then when a company employs them, you start screaming that outsourcing is horrible.

Second, very few CEO even work in areas that could be outsourced. Can you 'outsource' transportation? Of course not. Can you outsource food? No, because it would rot. Can you outsource entertainment? Can you outsource construction?

None of these can be outsourced. You can't ship all the lumber to China, have them build you a house, and float it back to Ohio and put it on a plot of land.

Third, those that do outsource, do so in order to save jobs. My company outsourced the production of the control units for our products. If we had not done this, the entire company would have closed. How much better off would we, and the country, have been if we had not outsourced?

There are millions of jobs that would not exist if not for outsourcing.

Lastly, the primary targets of outsourcing are Union jobs, because Unions drive up the cost of labor, beyond the market value of the item. If it wasn't for Unions, there would be far fewer outsourced jobs, than what there are.

Again, which companies closed plants, and opened shops in other countries? GM and Chrysler? Or Toyota and Honda? Toyota and Honda were actually opening up new plants in the US, at the very same time that GM and Chrysler were closing theirs.

The problem is Unions. In fact, Monroe just recently announced plans to open a new plant in Ohio, non-union of course, that will create 150 to 200 new jobs. Why didn't they outsource like you just moronically claimed all CEO do?

Please. Stop with the bull crap. You know better... or you should know better.

They threatened and in many cases did leave the US to build factories in low wage areas. This allowed them to marginally reduce the price to consumers which was a bonus to the average person but given wages were 5-10 dollars less per hour, they were able to reap the obvious profits from such a move. Soon the overhead was paid for by the cheap labor and the profits never stopped rolling. Hence, outsourcing is a masterful success according to capitalism.

Prove all of that. First off, any one is going to go where they can purchase things cheaper. You go to a store that has lower prices. You punch up google shopping, to find the cheapest price for something you want to buy.

But somehow when a company does this, you b!tch about it, even though all of us do that all the time in our daily lives.

Further, in low wage areas, they normally need jobs. That's why it's a low wage area. Are you saying those who need jobs the most, shouldn't get them, because it's a low wage area? Again, the left says they want to help the poor 3rd world people, and then when companies offer jobs to them, you complain.

And lastly, you start b!tching about profit again. You yourself would never go to work and provide your labor free without compensation. You profit from your job. That's ok. But how dare the person giving you the job, also profit?

Nothing in life, exists without profit. Nothing. Look around your house. There is barely anything there, that would exist without someone profiting. Every time you say "profit bad", what you are saying is that you support impoverishment. Because that's what happen when no one can profit. Pre-1978 China, the poverty level was $2 a DAY.... and 63% of the population lived BELOW the $2 a day poverty level.

But at least no one profited. That's all that matters.

btw, I would burst into tears if you could define my position and link it to extremism. I'd put myself in prison if you had such an argument. But I don't have to worry about that since you are more concerned about useful lies, not profound truths.

That's a pretty safe bet, because your position is built on your intentions, not the results of your beliefs.

We look at what you say, and follow it to it's historic results... not your mythical utopian ideal.

You can 'say' that you support the poor, but the fact is your policies harm the poor.

You can 'say' that you want what's best for the country, but your policies have historically harmed every country that has tried them.

So we look at what you say, and come the conclusion that you are leftist, and socialist, that will ruin the economy, ruin the country, and ruin most of the public, and you say "You don't know what I stand for!".... well no, we actually do. This is it. But it's not what you think you stand for.

Reminds me of an old Jewish lady who was interviewed by the BBC, and her parents mother and father, were supporters of Stalin. They were actually part of Stalin's government, part of the communist party, and believed in Socialism and Equality. They were supporting, and producing propaganda for Stalin, right up to the purge that had them both killed.

Do you think they really supported that? Of course not. Doesn't matter. That's what their beliefs and views resulted in. Same is true of you, and all the leftists like you. Yeah, you may believe in some workers paradise, but the end results of those ideals is always a living hell. I don't see many people swimming to Cuba. But I do see several hundred thousand Cubans, and now Venezuelans, in Florida.

 

[dnsmith35]

The business journal Bloomberg Businessweek points out that the country of Denmark has a minimum pay rate of the equivalent of about $20 an hour, but its business climate is sufficiently healthy for the World Bank to ranked it as the easiest place in Europe to do business in 2011, 2012, and 2013. Denmark is also "among the leading countries in income equality and national happiness." Denmark also had a lower unemployment rate (6.8%) and higher labor participation rate (64.4%) than the United States (7.4%, 63.6% as of September 2013) where the minimum wage is far lower ($7.25).

Minimum wage - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Yep, and it is one of the proofs of capitalism working. Thanks for reminding me. We do need higher wages for our less wealthy in my opinion.

I think you don't understand capitalism then. The reason the rich people are rich is because they earned it. SO what did they do to earn it? Outsourcing. They threatened and in many cases did leave the US to build factories in low wage areas. This allowed them to marginally reduce the price to consumers which was a bonus to the average person but given wages were 5-10 dollars less per hour, they were able to reap the obvious profits from such a move. Soon the overhead was paid for by the cheap labor and the profits never stopped rolling. Hence, outsourcing is a masterful success according to capitalism.

So in America if you want a job and a factory to hire you, you need to say, "our community is willing to work for bargain wages (far below minimum standards) so that our labor is competitive with the labor of China, Bangladesh and the like. Only if Americans accept lower wages will factories and industry return. So magically agreeing we should have higher wages and cheering for capitalism is like jeering at your ice cream cone because it tastes like shit when you fail to realize your ice cream literally is a pile of shit.

You are sadly inept at understanding your own creeds and how the interact but that's to be expected when you call anything that disagrees with your brainwashed mentality as "extremism" thereby effectively covering your ears to valid points about flaws that are inherent in capitalism.

btw, I would burst into tears if you could define my position and link it to extremism. I'd put myself in prison if you had such an argument. But I don't have to worry about that since you are more concerned about useful lies, not profound truths.

Then you should be crying now and turn yourself in. Your description of why rich people got richer, outsourcing. It is obvious you do not understand nor do you read the studies that prove you so wrong. Oh, and I leave the being brain washed to people like you who have swallowed left wing rhetoric hook, line and sinker. The difference? You read your sources and believe them. I do research for myself and take the data of studies and draw my own conclusions when it relates to economics. I am going to over look your insulting remarks this time because I haven't got the time to be messed with.

Don't blame the 1% for America's pay gap - The Term Sheet: Fortune's deals blogTerm Sheet

 

[Zombie_Pundit]

The Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission Peter J. Wallison and coauthor Edward Pinto believed that the housing bubble and crash was due to federal mandates to promote affordable housing. These were applied through the Community Reinvestment Act and "government sponsored entities" (GSE's) "Fannie Mae" (Federal National Mortgage Association) and "Freddie Mac" (Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation).[22] Journalist Daniel Indiviglio argues the two GSE's played a major role, while not denying the importance of Wall Street and others in the private sector in creating the collapse.[4]

The Housing and Community Development Act of 1992 established an affordable housing loan purchase mandate for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and that mandate was to be regulated by HUD. Initially, the 1992 legislation required that 30 percent or more of Fannie’s and Freddie’s loan purchases be related to affordable housing. However, HUD was given the power to set future requirements. In 1995 HUD mandated that 40 percent of Fannie and Freddie’s loan purchases would have to support affordable housing. In 1996, HUD directed Freddie and Fannie to provide at least 42% of their mortgage financing to borrowers with income below the median in their area. This target was increased to 50% in 2000 and 52% in 2005. Under the Bush Administration HUD continued to pressure Fannie and Freddie to increase affordable housing purchases – to as high as 56 percent by the year 2008.[22] To satisfy these mandates, Fannie and Freddie eventually announced low-income and minority loan commitments totaling $5 trillion.[23] Critics argue that, to meet these commitments, Fannie and Freddie promoted a loosening of lending standards - industry-wide.[24]

Regarding the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA), Economist Stan Liebowitz wrote in the New York Post that a strengthening of the CRA in the 1990s encouraged a loosening of lending standards throughout the banking industry. He also charged the Federal Reserve with ignoring the negative impact of the CRA.[25] American Enterprise Institute Scholar Edward Pinto noted that, in 2008, Bank of America reported that its CRA portfolio, which constituted only 7 percent of its owned residential mortgages, was responsible for 29 percent of its losses.[26] A Cleveland Plain Dealer investigation found that "The City of Cleveland has aggravated its vexing foreclosure problems and has lost millions in tax dollars by helping people buy homes they could not afford." The newspaper added that these problem mortgages "typically came from local banks fulfilling federal requirements to lend money in poorer neighborhoods." Min's contention that Fannie and Freddie did not buy a significant amount of high-risk mortgage backed securities must be evaluated in light of subsequent SEC security fraud charges brought against executives of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in December 2011. Significantly, the SEC alleged (and still maintains) that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac reported as subprime and substandard less than 10 percent of their actual subprime and substandard loans.[44] In other words, the substandard loans held in the GSE portfolios may have been 10 times greater than originally reported. According to Peter Wallison of the American Enterprise Institute, that would make the SEC's estimate of GSE substandard loans about $2 trillion - significantly higher than Edward Pinto's estimate.

I wish you all would stop with the talking points. Everyone knows that the GOP has been pushing this flimsy explanation for a couple years now. I mean really, try some original thought.

Here. let me help you:

Between 2000 and the bubble’s peak, inflation- adjusted housing prices in California and Florida more than doubled, and since the peak they have fallen by 20 to 30 percent. In contrast, housing prices in Georgia and Texas grew by only about 20 to 25 percent, and they haven’t significantly declined.

In other words, California and Florida housing bubbled, but Georgia and Texas housing did not. This is hardly because people don’t want to live in Georgia and Texas: since 2000, Atlanta, Dallas–Ft. Worth, and Houston have been the nation’s fastest-growing urban areas, each growing by more than 120,000 people per year.

This suggests that local factors, not national policies, were a necessary condition for the housing bubbles where they took place.​

How Urban Planners Caused the Housing Bubble | Cato Institute

Now that is some original and thought provoking analysis as opposed to rehashing Marco Rubio's response to Obama's State of the Union Address 2013. C'mon, guys, your narrative is tired. And besides, it's classic "Fallacy of the single cause". That fallacy usually goes like this:
Two kids are playing around inside and knock over a lamp.
One turns to the other and says "It just has to be your fault. Nothing I did could have been bad."

 

[dnsmith35]

How many compassionate conservatives on Wall Street are securitizing those sub-prime loans compared to 2006 when 84% of sub prime mortgages were issued by private lenders? Private lenders whose mouthpiece is "Inside Mortgage Finance". If you're actually gullible enough to believe their account, maybe you can work for the FBI.

I know of no compassionate politicians, neither left or right. Neither extreme does a darned thing to help the little people. The RW doesn't necessarily want to, and the left wing has not got the slightest idea how to do it.

Only one of the top 25 sub prime lenders in 2006 was subject to affordable housing laws; maybe you're convinced Countrywide was issuing "Nontraditional" mortgages to make Barney Frank happy and not to package them off to Wall Street?

Not specifically subject to the laws, but they all did what the government wanted them relative to subprime loans.

Virtually all of government's contribution to the housing bubble and its collapse, from 1998's repeal of Glass-Steagall to 2004's federal preemption of state anti-predatory lending laws was done to advance the acquisition of private profit at public expense, and that's where your mistakes begin.

ROTFLMAO! Virtually NONE of the housing bubble and its collapse was because of Glass-Steagall. The government's primary causal factor was pushing low interest, no down payment loans, and allowing ARMs with a low initial rate to go up so much at the first adjustment period. Actually, unless the borrower is very financially capable, no one should be allowed to get an ARM. Though housing prices did not become inflated until 1999 the beginning of the bubble DID start in 1997.

 

[gnarlylove]

New construction, should ALWAYS be cheaper than buying an existing house. Think about it..... if it wasn't..... no one would ever build a house.

Argument from incredulity
That's an absurd assumption. Someone might build a house because they want a brand new house, or specific customization, or for whatever reason they want what they want.

Build or Buy? A Housing Market Dilemma - US News

What construction company would build residential housing...... if the cost of building the house, was higher than (or even equal to) the market price?

Argument from incredulity
The type that incorrectly calculates what that market value is. Have you never seen a construction company abandon a residential housing project, specifically because the market did not bear what they originally thought it would?
9 Worst Recession Ghost Towns in America | The Fiscal Times

Androw, simply because you cannot imagine it existing does not mean it does not exist.


Argument from incredulity
The new owners may not know how gaudy and odd their tastes are. Maybe they thought it was a good idea to build a house that looked like an igloo? Just a possibility. I've seen some ugly specialty built houses.



If the consumer can find two fungible products that the consumer wants; then yes, generally consumer will purchase the cheaper one.

So logically...... Construction is always going to be lower than the fair market value of the resulting home.

Classic faulty syllogism.

In fact.... one of the reasons people knew there was a bubble, was because the market prices were so much higher than construction prices, they were saying you could build an empty lot, and build TWO homes for the cost of buying one existing home.

I would be interested in you substantiating that assertion.

Someone sat in on a logic class. Glad someone understands how assertions and arguments work. Just don't expect to get far on this forum since about 1 person for every 5,000 people on here have a clue how to reason, how to assess formal and informal logic, fallacies of thinking and so on. Basically they don't know how to think.

Our education system produces people who know how to run off at the mouth/keyboard but are puzzled when you tell them there's steps one should take to verify the accuracy of propositions. Too many want to scrutinize their opponent's position eager to tell you what to think without offering convincing argument. And too few care to hear scrutiny of their own position, which makes genuine debate impossible.

 

[gnarlylove]

Yep, and it is one of the proofs of capitalism working. Thanks for reminding me. We do need higher wages for our less wealthy in my opinion.

I think you don't understand capitalism then. The reason the rich people are rich is because they earned it. SO what did they do to earn it? Outsourcing.

Now you are just spewing bull crap. Seriously, why do you say these things when we all know it's not true?

First off, outsource supplies jobs to other people. Either way, that CEO supplies jobs, doesn't he? Are are you so racist that only Americans deserve jobs? You keep talking about how other 3rd world countries need jobs, and then when a company employs them, you start screaming that outsourcing is horrible.

Second, very few CEO even work in areas that could be outsourced. Can you 'outsource' transportation? Of course not. Can you outsource food? No, because it would rot. Can you outsource entertainment? Can you outsource construction?

None of these can be outsourced. You can't ship all the lumber to China, have them build you a house, and float it back to Ohio and put it on a plot of land.

Third, those that do outsource, do so in order to save jobs. My company outsourced the production of the control units for our products. If we had not done this, the entire company would have closed. How much better off would we, and the country, have been if we had not outsourced?

There are millions of jobs that would not exist if not for outsourcing.

Lastly, the primary targets of outsourcing are Union jobs, because Unions drive up the cost of labor, beyond the market value of the item. If it wasn't for Unions, there would be far fewer outsourced jobs, than what there are.

Again, which companies closed plants, and opened shops in other countries? GM and Chrysler? Or Toyota and Honda? Toyota and Honda were actually opening up new plants in the US, at the very same time that GM and Chrysler were closing theirs.

The problem is Unions. In fact, Monroe just recently announced plans to open a new plant in Ohio, non-union of course, that will create 150 to 200 new jobs. Why didn't they outsource like you just moronically claimed all CEO do?

Please. Stop with the bull crap. You know better... or you should know better.

They threatened and in many cases did leave the US to build factories in low wage areas. This allowed them to marginally reduce the price to consumers which was a bonus to the average person but given wages were 5-10 dollars less per hour, they were able to reap the obvious profits from such a move. Soon the overhead was paid for by the cheap labor and the profits never stopped rolling. Hence, outsourcing is a masterful success according to capitalism.

Prove all of that. First off, any one is going to go where they can purchase things cheaper. You go to a store that has lower prices. You punch up google shopping, to find the cheapest price for something you want to buy.

But somehow when a company does this, you b!tch about it, even though all of us do that all the time in our daily lives.

Further, in low wage areas, they normally need jobs. That's why it's a low wage area. Are you saying those who need jobs the most, shouldn't get them, because it's a low wage area? Again, the left says they want to help the poor 3rd world people, and then when companies offer jobs to them, you complain.

And lastly, you start b!tching about profit again. You yourself would never go to work and provide your labor free without compensation. You profit from your job. That's ok. But how dare the person giving you the job, also profit?

Nothing in life, exists without profit. Nothing. Look around your house. There is barely anything there, that would exist without someone profiting. Every time you say "profit bad", what you are saying is that you support impoverishment. Because that's what happen when no one can profit. Pre-1978 China, the poverty level was $2 a DAY.... and 63% of the population lived BELOW the $2 a day poverty level.

But at least no one profited. That's all that matters.

btw, I would burst into tears if you could define my position and link it to extremism. I'd put myself in prison if you had such an argument. But I don't have to worry about that since you are more concerned about useful lies, not profound truths.

That's a pretty safe bet, because your position is built on your intentions, not the results of your beliefs.

We look at what you say, and follow it to it's historic results... not your mythical utopian ideal.

You can 'say' that you support the poor, but the fact is your policies harm the poor.

You can 'say' that you want what's best for the country, but your policies have historically harmed every country that has tried them.

So we look at what you say, and come the conclusion that you are leftist, and socialist, that will ruin the economy, ruin the country, and ruin most of the public, and you say "You don't know what I stand for!".... well no, we actually do. This is it. But it's not what you think you stand for.

Reminds me of an old Jewish lady who was interviewed by the BBC, and her parents mother and father, were supporters of Stalin. They were actually part of Stalin's government, part of the communist party, and believed in Socialism and Equality. They were supporting, and producing propaganda for Stalin, right up to the purge that had them both killed.

Do you think they really supported that? Of course not. Doesn't matter. That's what their beliefs and views resulted in. Same is true of you, and all the leftists like you. Yeah, you may believe in some workers paradise, but the end results of those ideals is always a living hell. I don't see many people swimming to Cuba. But I do see several hundred thousand Cubans, and now Venezuelans, in Florida.

First, there is tons of outsourcing food (Salmon that are farm raised in Chile sent to the US markets, Nestle chocolate produced in the Ivory Coast under conditions of child slavery for Western markets), entertainment (Korean animators for the Simpsons and countless other examples). You must not understand economics very well if you think few industries can be outsourced.

Second, I did not intend my statement "how did rich get rich? by outsourcing" as the only way rich people earned their wealth. They earn it all sorts of ways, including outsourcing. It's easy for you to criticize my post when you don't consider it within it's context.

How many times do you have to denounce Stalin full well knowing it has nothing to do with the actual concept of communism? And for that matter, communism has no relevancy to the topic. This is about facts of capitalism: the desire for profit leads to outsourcing. If you have to continually shift focus from the topic, go masturbate or something. Stop rehashing your hatred for leftism and stick to the god damn topic.

I'd rather live in a functioning society without extremism caused by unaddressed grievances, which are the result of few opportunities to employ oneself productively. But that cannot happen so long as selfish fucks prioritize profit over people and societal cohesion. You've been in Ohio. You know what outsourcing does to communities. You are also smart enough to know why outsourcing happened. You also should be smart enough to realize outsourcing results because of profit over people meaning the CEO decides the wealth generated by that community should be spent on outsourcing. Thus the community that produced the wealth are of secondary concern to the Board. And when people are secondary, social consequences happen.

 

[dnsmith35]

I think you don't understand capitalism then. The reason the rich people are rich is because they earned it. SO what did they do to earn it? Outsourcing. They threatened and in many cases did leave the US to build factories in low wage areas. This allowed them to marginally reduce the price to consumers which was a bonus to the average person but given wages were 5-10 dollars less per hour, they were able to reap the obvious profits from such a move. Soon the overhead was paid for by the cheap labor and the profits never stopped rolling. Hence, outsourcing is a masterful success according to capitalism.

Typically whiny socialist pap.
Meaningless ad hominem. Provides no relevant information to the matter at hand: capitalism

Not all or even most wealthy peeps own factories and not all or even most American firms outsource to foreign countries.
Assuming this is true, it has no relevancy to the fact that American jobs have been outsourced at the behest of the adorable profit motive. And it also aligns with the fact real wages have stagnated since the 70s--companies don't have to pay rising wages anymore. They can simply make more profit elsewhere if the pampered American worker won't accept it, and they in fact do.Which has no bearing on the plight of the American worker. Studies show data which supports between 1.1 and 1.7 new jobs in the US for every job off shored. A second study shows that those who lost their jobs lost no more than 3% of their wage if in the same industry and no more than 7% if starting a new job in a new industry. Don't blame the 1% for America's pay gap - The Term Sheet: Fortune's deals blogTerm Sheet

Americans get wealthy by selling their services, skills and products competitively in the global market
If you are implying all Americans who become wealthy do so based on merit, you are obviously leaving how a significant portion become rich: inheritance...the opposite of merit. Do you have any data suggesting otherwise? I may be wrong and would love to see what you're trying to say here.

Most millionaires today do not come from old money.

and no amount of socialist whining will make you wealthy.
You finish strong with another hollow personal attack, which is evidently unrelated to how outsourcing has effected people and communities i.e. deficit of good paying jobs in the Rust Belt leading to drug related crime sky rocket and drug overdoses to increase 200 fold over the last two decades.

You obviously have no idea how outsourcing has effected people and communities.

 

[dnsmith35]

New construction, should ALWAYS be cheaper than buying an existing house. Think about it..... if it wasn't..... no one would ever build a house.

Argument from incredulity
That's an absurd assumption. Someone might build a house because they want a brand new house, or specific customization, or for whatever reason they want what they want.

Build or Buy? A Housing Market Dilemma - US News


Argument from incredulity
The type that incorrectly calculates what that market value is. Have you never seen a construction company abandon a residential housing project, specifically because the market did not bear what they originally thought it would?
9 Worst Recession Ghost Towns in America | The Fiscal Times

Androw, simply because you cannot imagine it existing does not mean it does not exist.


Argument from incredulity
The new owners may not know how gaudy and odd their tastes are. Maybe they thought it was a good idea to build a house that looked like an igloo? Just a possibility. I've seen some ugly specialty built houses.



If the consumer can find two fungible products that the consumer wants; then yes, generally consumer will purchase the cheaper one.



Classic faulty syllogism.

In fact.... one of the reasons people knew there was a bubble, was because the market prices were so much higher than construction prices, they were saying you could build an empty lot, and build TWO homes for the cost of buying one existing home.

I would be interested in you substantiating that assertion.

Someone sat in on a logic class. Glad someone understands how assertions and arguments work. Just don't expect to get far on this forum since about 1 person for every 5,000 people on here have a clue how to reason, how to assess formal and informal logic, fallacies of thinking and so on. Our education system produces people who know how to run off at the mouth/keyboard but are puzzled when you tell them there's steps to take to verify the accuracy of propositions. Too many want to scrutinize their opponent's position and too few know the first steps of how to scrutinize their own position.

Oh yeah, now I get it. All left wing extremists are rude, he is a left wing extremist, therefore he is rude.

 

[dnsmith35]

Yep, and it is one of the proofs of capitalism working. Thanks for reminding me. We do need higher wages for our less wealthy in my opinion.

I think you don't understand capitalism then. The reason the rich people are rich is because they earned it. SO what did they do to earn it? Outsourcing.

Now you are just spewing bull crap. Seriously, why do you say these things when we all know it's not true?

First off, outsource supplies jobs to other people. Either way, that CEO supplies jobs, doesn't he? Are are you so racist that only Americans deserve jobs? You keep talking about how other 3rd world countries need jobs, and then when a company employs them, you start screaming that outsourcing is horrible.

It is not unusual for left wingers to prefer a union elitist worker get his raise than to give a labor intensive job to a 3rd world worker. Who knew?

Second, very few CEO even work in areas that could be outsourced. Can you 'outsource' transportation? Of course not. Can you outsource food? No, because it would rot. Can you outsource entertainment? Can you outsource construction?

None of these can be outsourced. You can't ship all the lumber to China, have them build you a house, and float it back to Ohio and put it on a plot of land.

Third, those that do outsource, do so in order to save jobs. My company outsourced the production of the control units for our products. If we had not done this, the entire company would have closed. How much better off would we, and the country, have been if we had not outsourced?

But, but, but 10 elitist high paid workers lost their job, for what? Giving 500 low paid workers who have to work under the conditions which exist in that 3rd world country? How sad!

There are millions of jobs that would not exist if not for outsourcing.

Between 1.1 and 1.7 of those jobs in the US. Wow, who knew? The economists who did the study.

Lastly, the primary targets of outsourcing are Union jobs, because Unions drive up the cost of labor, beyond the market value of the item. If it wasn't for Unions, there would be far fewer outsourced jobs, than what there are.

Again, which companies closed plants, and opened shops in other countries? GM and Chrysler? Or Toyota and Honda? Toyota and Honda were actually opening up new plants in the US, at the very same time that GM and Chrysler were closing theirs.

The problem is Unions. In fact, Monroe just recently announced plans to open a new plant in Ohio, non-union of course, that will create 150 to 200 new jobs. Why didn't they outsource like you just moronically claimed all CEO do?

Please. Stop with the bull crap. You know better... or you should know better.

They threatened and in many cases did leave the US to build factories in low wage areas. This allowed them to marginally reduce the price to consumers which was a bonus to the average person but given wages were 5-10 dollars less per hour, they were able to reap the obvious profits from such a move. Soon the overhead was paid for by the cheap labor and the profits never stopped rolling. Hence, outsourcing is a masterful success according to capitalism.

Prove all of that. First off, any one is going to go where they can purchase things cheaper. You go to a store that has lower prices. You punch up google shopping, to find the cheapest price for something you want to buy.

But somehow when a company does this, you b!tch about it, even though all of us do that all the time in our daily lives.

Further, in low wage areas, they normally need jobs. That's why it's a low wage area. Are you saying those who need jobs the most, shouldn't get them, because it's a low wage area? Again, the left says they want to help the poor 3rd world people, and then when companies offer jobs to them, you complain.

And lastly, you start b!tching about profit again. You yourself would never go to work and provide your labor free without compensation. You profit from your job. That's ok. But how dare the person giving you the job, also profit?

Nothing in life, exists without profit. Nothing. Look around your house. There is barely anything there, that would exist without someone profiting. Every time you say "profit bad", what you are saying is that you support impoverishment. Because that's what happen when no one can profit. Pre-1978 China, the poverty level was $2 a DAY.... and 63% of the population lived BELOW the $2 a day poverty level.

But at least no one profited. That's all that matters.

btw, I would burst into tears if you could define my position and link it to extremism. I'd put myself in prison if you had such an argument. But I don't have to worry about that since you are more concerned about useful lies, not profound truths.

That's a pretty safe bet, because your position is built on your intentions, not the results of your beliefs.

We look at what you say, and follow it to it's historic results... not your mythical utopian ideal.

You can 'say' that you support the poor, but the fact is your policies harm the poor.

You can 'say' that you want what's best for the country, but your policies have historically harmed every country that has tried them.

So we look at what you say, and come the conclusion that you are leftist, and socialist, that will ruin the economy, ruin the country, and ruin most of the public, and you say "You don't know what I stand for!".... well no, we actually do. This is it. But it's not what you think you stand for.

Reminds me of an old Jewish lady who was interviewed by the BBC, and her parents mother and father, were supporters of Stalin. They were actually part of Stalin's government, part of the communist party, and believed in Socialism and Equality. They were supporting, and producing propaganda for Stalin, right up to the purge that had them both killed.

Do you think they really supported that? Of course not. Doesn't matter. That's what their beliefs and views resulted in. Same is true of you, and all the leftists like you. Yeah, you may believe in some workers paradise, but the end results of those ideals is always a living hell. I don't see many people swimming to Cuba. But I do see several hundred thousand Cubans, and now Venezuelans, in Florida.

What our "outsourcing" haters also don't or won't understand is, off shoring is helping 3rd world countries create new middle class labor pools who are becoming consumers of our goods and services.

 

[dnsmith35]

.....

Androw - That's a pretty safe bet, because your position is built on your intentions, not the results of your beliefs.

That is a profoundly correct statement. The right wing may not want to help the poor through government, but more important, the left wing has not got the slightest idea how to help the poor. The simple fact is, THERE HAS NEVER BEEN A SUCCESSFUL SOCIALIST EXPERIMENT THAT LASTED WITHOUT IT BEING A DICTATORSHIP. The so called socialist states of Scandinavia are not Socialist, they are Capitalist with more social programs than we have.

 

[gnarlylove]

Yep, and it is one of the proofs of capitalism working. Thanks for reminding me. We do need higher wages for our less wealthy in my opinion.

I think you don't understand capitalism then. The reason the rich people are rich is because they earned it. SO what did they do to earn it? Outsourcing. They threatened and in many cases did leave the US to build factories in low wage areas. This allowed them to marginally reduce the price to consumers which was a bonus to the average person but given wages were 5-10 dollars less per hour, they were able to reap the obvious profits from such a move. Soon the overhead was paid for by the cheap labor and the profits never stopped rolling. Hence, outsourcing is a masterful success according to capitalism.

So in America if you want a job and a factory to hire you, you need to say, "our community is willing to work for bargain wages (far below minimum standards) so that our labor is competitive with the labor of China, Bangladesh and the like. Only if Americans accept lower wages will factories and industry return. So magically agreeing we should have higher wages and cheering for capitalism is like jeering at your ice cream cone because it tastes like shit when you fail to realize your ice cream literally is a pile of shit.

You are sadly inept at understanding your own creeds and how the interact but that's to be expected when you call anything that disagrees with your brainwashed mentality as "extremism" thereby effectively covering your ears to valid points about flaws that are inherent in capitalism.

btw, I would burst into tears if you could define my position and link it to extremism. I'd put myself in prison if you had such an argument. But I don't have to worry about that since you are more concerned about useful lies, not profound truths.

Then you should be crying now and turn yourself in. Your description of why rich people got richer, outsourcing. It is obvious you do not understand nor do you read the studies that prove you so wrong. Oh, and I leave the being brain washed to people like you who have swallowed left wing rhetoric hook, line and sinker. The difference? You read your sources and believe them. I do research for myself and take the data of studies and draw my own conclusions when it relates to economics. I am going to over look your insulting remarks this time because I haven't got the time to be messed with.

Don't blame the 1% for America's pay gap - The Term Sheet: Fortune's deals blogTerm Sheet

Did I mention the pay gap? No. Then what does your research have to do with my point? Nothing.

The fact remains: it is more profitable to leave communities in the US, reducing opportunities in the US, so a board of directors can pursue greater sums of money. When US companies outsource, they are showing money is more important then the a community, then their employees who have worked for them for decades. Why? Capitalism says to pursue your own interests, your own self maximization. So it makes perfect sense to dismiss the ramifications of uprooting good jobs for millions of Americans: the primary objective is seeking one's own profit maximization.

 

[Andylusion]

How many compassionate conservatives on Wall Street are securitizing those sub-prime loans compared to 2006 when 84% of sub prime mortgages were issued by private lenders? Private lenders whose mouthpiece is "Inside Mortgage Finance". If you're actually gullible enough to believe their account, maybe you can work for the FBI.

Only one of the top 25 sub prime lenders in 2006 was subject to affordable housing laws; maybe you're convinced Countrywide was issuing "Nontraditional" mortgages to make Barney Frank happy and not to package them off to Wall Street?

Virtually all of government's contribution to the housing bubble and its collapse, from 1998's repeal of Glass-Steagall to 2004's federal preemption of state anti-predatory lending laws was done to advance the acquisition of private profit at public expense, and that's where your mistakes begin.

First off, most of wall street are all democrats, and liberals.

Again, Glass-Steagall had nothing to do with it. None of the provision of Glass-Steagall EVEN APPLIED to the banks that crashed, with only a few exceptions. Countrywide would not have been affected by Glass Steagall. Indymac, Bear Stearns, AIG, Wachovia, the list goes on and on. None would have been covered by Glass-Steagall.

You talk about mistakes, and yet you keep bringing up completely and totally irrelevant policies that had absolutely nothing to do with the entire problem. You might as well bring up that CAFE standards were not applied to banks either. That has just as much baring on the sub-prime crash as Glass-Steagall.

As for predatory lending, it would not have changed anything. The bubble was already created by 1998. You can't blame a policy change in 2004, for a price bubble, and sub-prime boom, that started in 1997. You are just floundering around again, grasping at anything.

And lastly, you are becoming an idiot. Can you prove the information from Insider Mortgage Financial, which would know more about the mortgage market, than you could dream to know, wrong? If not, then shut up. You don't know jack, and you just becoming a dumb asshole on the forums.

Who Really Drove the Economy Into the Ditch?
By Joseph Fried
Page 109-110.

Years before Sub-prime mortgage crisis erupted, F&F were promoting subprime lending - industry wide. In 1997, Matt Millar, a Director of Single-Family Affordable Lending at Freddie Mac, addressed private lenders at an Affordable Housing Symposium. He said that Freddie could usually find a way to buy and securitize their affordable housing loans "Though the us of Loan Prospectors research and creative credit enhancements"

Then Mr Miller added "But what can you do if after all this analysis the product you are holding is not up standards of the conventional secondary market? [in other words, what if Freddie can't legally buy the loans - even after putting lipstick on them with loan prospector?]

Matt Miller had a solution: Freddie would work with "several firms" in an effort to find buyers for these extra-smelly loans. These flunky firms would, at the behest of Freddie, buy the garbage loans that were so bad they could not be called conforming.

And then you see the sub-prime market in 1997 take off.

Again, all the evidence is against you. Freddie and Fannie were pushing these loans. The government was pushing these loans. And all you can do is fart around saying "If you're actually gullible enough"... well if you are so mindlessly stupid that all the evidence in the world is just "a Private lenders mouthpiece", then you are too plain stupid to be discussing this topic.

Fannie Mae Foundation Oct 2000.
"Case Study: Countrywide Financial Inc."
Page 119

Countrywide tends to follow the most flexible underwriting criteria permitted under GSE and FHA guidelines. Because Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac tend to give their best lenders access to the most flexible underwriting criteria, Countrywide benefits from its status as one of the largest originators of mortgage loans and one of the largest participants in the GSE programs. …

When necessary—in cases where applicants have no established credit history, for example—Countrywide uses nontraditional credit, a practice now accepted by the GSEs.

Now whatcha going to do? Straight from Fannie Mae, Countrywide is engaging in sub-prime lending that the GSEs promoted.

Is Fannie Mae a 'Private lenders mouthpiece'? Huh?

Page 118, the page before.

Since Countrwide's founding in 1969, the company has been involved in the entry-level home-buying market. Between 1969 and 1992, most of its lending conformed to Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and FHA guidelines and loan limits. FHA loans constituted the largest share of Countrywide's activity, until Fannia Mae and Freddie Mac began accepting loans with higher LTVs and greater underwriting flexibilities

What's your excuse now? What random irrelevant crap are you going to barf on the forum now, to dodge the words direct from Fannie Mae saying that Countrywide followed the guidelines until Fannie and Freddie started accepting loans with higher loan to value ratios, and more flexible standards?

Grow up dude. Just grow up. Stop being that 10 year old that blames absolutely everyone else for what went wrong.

Fannie and Freddie were designed to influence the mortgage market, and that's exactly what they did, and that's what crashed it.

 

[gnarlylove]

Studies show data which supports between 1.1 and 1.7 new jobs in the US for every job off shored.

First that statistic was used by you to indicate how many jobs have been created since the global crisis. Now you are using it in regards to jobs that are outsourced. Now which is it? It cannot be both since outsourcing has been occurring since the late 70s and the crisis began in 07.

 

[Zombie_Pundit]

First off, outsource supplies jobs to other people. Either way, that CEO supplies jobs, doesn't he?

Okay, let's go easy on the deification of the 1%. Why do you build a Golden Calf for the glory of the 1%-ers? We need not demonize them, but it is also absurd to worship them as living gods as you do. It is strange to meet someone with a million living gods.

Are are you [gnarlylove] so racist that only Americans deserve jobs?

That could be an interesting point, if we remove the accusation. Why do people decry globalization? By way of Global Labor Arbitrage, real wages are increasing in developing countries. It is rather mercantilist to argue against Globalization. And Global Free Trade is a better path to World Peace than is Mutually Assured Destruction.
Here is a paper actually advocating a return to mercantilism:
http://www.msaiki.com/Mercantilism.7.pdf

Second, very few CEO even work in areas that could be outsourced. Can you 'outsource' transportation? Of course not.

That's not a good one. We have a lot of foreign cars. We most certainly import foreign oil. We import a good deal that pertains to transportation.

Can you outsource food? No, because it would rot.

Also not a good one. Wow, that's really horrible. Yes, we can import food by the ton and we do.

Can you outsource entertainment?

Hollywood or Bollywood, take your pick.

Can you outsource construction?

Need steel for that construction?

You can't ship all the lumber to China, have them build you a house, and float it back to Ohio and put it on a plot of land.

Pushing aside the qualifier "all"... You could do exactly what you say you cannot do.
Prefab homes exist. And you can plop the prefab home on a plot of land in any place you want.
A builder in China can, in fact, import lumber, construct some cruddy little house, and then send it to the US for a US importer to sell in the US market. Whether or not the house ends up in Ohio is just too specific on your part.

Third, those that do outsource, do so in order to save jobs.

They do it for profit.

My company outsourced the production of the control units for our products. If we had not done this, the entire company would have closed.

And that is good for the laid off, how? You have a number of disturbing anecdotes about this place. I think you need a new job.

How much better off would we, and the country, have been if we had not outsourced?

You mentioned pay slashing at this company in another thread. If this company shutdown, you would have to go work for someplace that maybe does not slash pay. Might be good for you.

As for the country, the country does not really care about this pay-slashing kiosk console making sweatshop in Ohio.

There are millions of jobs that would not exist if not for outsourcing.

Okay, you're going to have to substantiate that wild claim with something besides your own unique analysis.

Lastly, the primary targets of outsourcing are Union jobs, because Unions drive up the cost of labor, beyond the market value of the item. If it wasn't for Unions, there would be far fewer outsourced jobs, than what there are.

Oh goodness, now comes the demonizing of collective bargaining. Are you reading off a worksheet from Glenn Beck University?

Again, which companies closed plants, and opened shops in other countries? GM and Chrysler? Or Toyota and Honda? Toyota and Honda were actually opening up new plants in the US, at the very same time that GM and Chrysler were closing theirs.

This is true.

The problem is Unions. In fact, Monroe just recently announced plans to open a new plant in Ohio, non-union of course, that will create 150 to 200 new jobs. Why didn't they outsource like you just moronically claimed all CEO do?

Fallacy of the single cause
I don't know what gnarlylove's claim was, but two bad claim's don't make a truth.
Did it ever occur to you that there are numerous reasons?

UGN considered locations in Ohio and Indiana to build the plant. Ohio ultimately won the business for several reasons, including the state and local governments partnering to offer incentives to help lower the investment cost, Khalaf said.​

New auto plant announced for Monroe | www.daytondailynews.com

btw, I would burst into tears if you could define my position and link it to extremism. I'd put myself in prison if you had such an argument. But I don't have to worry about that since you are more concerned about useful lies, not profound truths.

That's a pretty safe bet, because your position is built on your intentions, not the results of your beliefs.

We look at what you say, and follow it to it's historic results... not your mythical utopian ideal.

You can 'say' that you support the poor, but the fact is your policies harm the poor.

You can 'say' that you want what's best for the country, but your policies have historically harmed every country that has tried them.


So we look at what you say, and come the conclusion that you are leftist, and socialist, that will ruin the economy, ruin the country, and ruin most of the public...

Wow there's a lot of sanctimony here. This melodrama is a bit much. Reason would be a better defense against bad policy as opposed to witchhunting, whether the witch you're looking for is a CEO or a Hippie.

 

[crisismangement]

Studies show data which supports between 1.1 and 1.7 new jobs in the US for every job off shored.

First that statistic was used by you to indicate how many jobs have been created since the global crisis. Now you are using it in regards to jobs that are outsourced. Now which is it? It cannot be both since outsourcing has been occurring since the late 70s and the crisis began in 07.

I have never seen it used it to suggest anything other than outsourcing does not cost the US jobs. You are wrong, and I challenge you to link me to that fictitious post. You do know it doesn't exist, why lie?

 

[Andylusion]

New construction, should ALWAYS be cheaper than buying an existing house. Think about it..... if it wasn't..... no one would ever build a house.

Argument from incredulity
That's an absurd assumption. Someone might build a house because they want a brand new house, or specific customization, or for whatever reason they want what they want.

Which is STILL NOT A MARKET VALUE.

Fail.

You can't look at the cost of construction, and determine the market value of the home.

Look... if you are this dumb... then nothing else you post is worth reading.

If you can't figure out this most basic of concepts... then you are finished here. Someone saying things this stupid, can't possibly have anything else of value to say.

You are dismissed.

Someone sat in on a logic class. Glad someone understands how assertions and arguments work. Just don't expect to get far on this forum since about 1 person for every 5,000 people on here have a clue how to reason, how to assess formal and informal logic, fallacies of thinking and so on. Basically they don't know how to think.

Our education system produces people who know how to run off at the mouth/keyboard but are puzzled when you tell them there's steps one should take to verify the accuracy of propositions. Too many want to scrutinize their opponent's position eager to tell you what to think without offering convincing argument. And too few care to hear scrutiny of their own position, which makes genuine debate impossible.

That was a completely idiotic, and illogical post, by someone that I have added to my /ignore list, and you just praised them on their idiocy?

If not for you quoting them, I would not have seen their stupidity.

Are you seriously telling me, that you believe that companies build homes for a higher price, than what the house would be worth on the market? Following that logic, can you explain how a housing construction company would stay in business following that model?

And are you seriously suggesting that you believe that regardless, such a cost, should be added to housing price index even though the house in question has never been on the market?

I'm just baffled, because you never seem to make such idiotic claims to this point, so I'm shocked you praised such logic.

 

[Andylusion]

First, there is tons of outsourcing food (Salmon that are farm raised in Chile sent to the US markets, Nestle chocolate produced in the Ivory Coast under conditions of child slavery for Western markets), entertainment (Korean animators for the Simpsons and countless other examples). You must not understand economics very well if you think few industries can be outsourced.

Well perhaps you are right. I have no idea about supposed 'child slavery'. The left tends to make up a lot of crap about supposed slavery. But maybe far more than I think could be outsourced.

Does that not suggest to you that outsourcing isn't the big boogie man that you claim? If all the jobs could be outsourced, and yet we have the highest standard of living in the world, the poorest people own cars and big screen TVs and smart phones, the median wage is $50K, when $30K makes you the top 1% of wage earners in the world.....

Does that not show that apparently outsourcing isn't this huge threat?

Second, I did not intend my statement "how did rich get rich? by outsourcing" as the only way rich people earned their wealth. They earn it all sorts of ways, including outsourcing. It's easy for you to criticize my post when you don't consider it within it's context.

Well that's better. Some.... a few.... outsource. And I have no problem with that. Outsourcing to keep the company open, and thousands of jobs in the US, to me is a net benefit, not loss.

How many times do you have to denounce Stalin full well knowing it has nothing to do with the actual concept of communism? And for that matter, communism has no relevancy to the topic. This is about facts of capitalism: the desire for profit leads to outsourcing. If you have to continually shift focus from the topic, go masturbate or something. Stop rehashing your hatred for leftism and stick to the god damn topic.

But it doesn't 'automatically' lead to outsourcing. And of course there is a desire for profit. Again, if there was no desire for profit, they would not have invested money into creating the company in first place.

All the jobs that exist, only exist because of a desire for profit. If you were running a lemonade stand, there would be only one reason to invest the money into buying the equipment and supplies, and hire people to operate a second lemonade stand. Profit.

If those people you hire, form a union and drive up labor costs, or the government passes laws that drive up labor costs, so that you could no longer profit from having those other lemonade stands, you are going to do one of two things. Either close the stand, or find some way to outsource it to cheaper labor, so you can make a profit again.

That's how the world operates. That's how every individual operates.

I'd rather live in a functioning society without extremism caused by unaddressed grievances, which are the result of few opportunities to employ oneself productively. But that cannot happen so long as selfish fucks prioritize profit over people and societal cohesion. You've been in Ohio. You know what outsourcing does to communities. You are also smart enough to know why outsourcing happened. You also should be smart enough to realize outsourcing results because of profit over people meaning the CEO decides the wealth generated by that community should be spent on outsourcing. Thus the community that produced the wealth are of secondary concern to the Board. And when people are secondary, social consequences happen.

The problem with using the 'unaddressed grievances', is that many people don't have any, but think they do.

And further, again, you are just wrong about this claim that "few opportunities to employ oneself productively". If that was true, why are Asian immigrating to the US, and have a higher standard of living than white Americans?

If that was true, why are people coming to the US from all over the world?

Why is it that a guy with no education, immigrating here from Jamaica, can open a business selling Jamaican food, and end up a millionaire? Did he miss the white American memo that there simply were no opportunities to employ himself productively?

What about this guy from Egypt, who has a business down the street, fixing up and reselling used electronic equipment?
USTRG
I used to work for the guy. Did he miss the memo that there was no opportunities for him here?

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/7-self-made-immigrant-millionaires.html?page=all

Why didn't all these immigrants come here and become millionaires, if there were just so few opportunities?

It's just not true.