Capitalism versus Socialism

[hym 358]

Originally posted by: coolotter88 really doesn't take much skill to answer the telephone as "fred" and fix your antivirus. They do the same things over and over again. The guys in bangalore just say do this, if it doesn't work, do this, if that doesn't work, do this. I think most of the time, they're reading from a book or a website.

Edit: anyway, there is low unemployment in the united states, those displaced by outsourcing can easily find another job. also, many jobs are being "insourced" to the United states. outsourcing also means higher efficiency resulting in cheaper products/services for the customers. not only that, outsourcing helps small businesses because it increases efficiency and reduces costs. outsourcing also helps the countries the jobs are outsourced to. It increases the standard of living in  developing countries such as India and China because the workers are getting paid more than before.

Only the "unskilled" (I say unskilled because they require little training) jobs are outsourced to other countries. The "skilled" jobs, say, ones where experience in the field is necessary to better serve the customer such as an accountant that will minimize tax payments to the government, are still retained.quote>

Actually, technically-oriented, white collar jobs, such as an engineer, for example, are being outsourced to other countries (also, personal accountants may not be leaving the states, but corporate accounting jobs are being shipped to India extremely quickly).  I'll use the engineer as an example, since I can use numbers I know to be fairly accurate:  A computer engineer working at Intel (computer engineering is effectively electrical engineering, so it's the same difference) is expected to cost the company $250,000 a year in total salary, related compensation, and other assorted costs.  Assuming this Intel engineer works the standard 8 hour day, 5 days a week, and takes 3 weeks vacation (which they do receive), and the 10 assorted holidays they are given.  Using those numbers, the engineer works for approximately 231 days out of the year.  That means that his total cost of employment is approximately $135.28 per hour.  Over in Hungary, your typical engineer costs about $38.40 an hour; that translates into a 71.6% cost reduction by going overseas.  Considering that it costs $100 million to design a high-end CPU, I believe a 71.6% cost reduction would be very much welcomed by the senior management.  There is incentive to offshore the high-paying jobs too, it's just a question of does the management feel the effort is worth the reduced cost.

This doesn't help out my statement, but in the interest of thorough discussion, I'll mention it.  From what I've been able to ascertain, the Intel company is unlikely to offshore its engineers anytime soon.  It appears that the upper management takes interest in the well-being of its employees, and is unlikely to want to offshore them when they can get the job done and make the company money.  Supposedly, the management feels that their employees are dedicated and skilled enough that the effort needed to offshore the design work isn't worth the hassle.  Again, I don't say that to discredit what I mentioned in the prior paragraph, as companies like IBM have said that their engineers are expendable; I mentioned it only in the sake of giving the full details of the situation.

[Voar Tok 4]

Originally posted by: coolotter88

Only the "unskilled" (I say unskilled because they require little training) jobs are outsourced to other countries. The "skilled" jobs, say, ones where experience in the field is necessary to better serve the customer such as an accountant that will minimize tax payments to the government, are still retained.quote>

Still incorrect.  My sister is good friends with a woman who's husband is a CPA.  He couldn't find a job for months after he got out of college because none of them remained.  I have a good friend who works is financial retirement.  He habitually is talking with people who live in India while trying to help his customers.

Also, whether or not you are skilled labor has nothing to do with how easy it is to train you.

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 7, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[coolotter88 2]

I'm going to throw a bunch of links at you from google

http://www.wcit.org/topics/imports/outsourcing_2-04.htm

http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba/ba480/

http://www.heritage.org/Research/TradeandForeignAid/wm467.cfm

http://www.computerworld.com/developmenttopics/development/story/0,10801,93413,00.html

The US unemployment rate is at 4.8%

while GB unemployment rate is about half that, France's unemployment rate is almost double that of the US. in 2005 Germany's unemployment rate was over 12%. Our neighbor to the north has an unemployment rate of 6.4%. Plus, japan, another industrialized country's unemployment rate is near ours at 4.1%...now tell me, is the US unemployment rate relatively high or low?

This graph from the wikimedia foundation shows that unemployment rates are actually dropping in the US in the past few years.

I also quote a quote on the outsourcing article on wikipedia (it's cited in the article)

"while [the U.S. is] exporting some jobs to other countries, the greatest beneficiary of outsourcing is the U.S. itself."

foreign companies employ about 6.4 million americans, these are the insourced jobs. you can find stuff like this at the department of commerce.

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 7, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[crazyyaya 4]

I find it ironic how thechinas economy is only large becuase of the U.S. If america had never opened relations with China in order for products to be made cheaper, the economy would not be weakening now.China is powered by a slow US economy. Thanks alot Richard Nixon.

Just goes to show you how short term advantages can so quickly become long term disadventages.

[coolotter88 2]

still, i've proven that US unemployment is low, finding a new job shouldn't be all that hard (if you can't you probably need to work on something). do you have any sources that say outsourcing is bad? a search on google using the keyword outsourcing doesn't really return anything that says outsourcing is bad on the first page.

[Micah 16]

I don't think America's economy slump is entirely based on the jobs. I personally think America's general slump has to do with the change since the 1980s. Ever since the Soviet Union was beginning to collapse, America changed from a creditor nation (giving out more resources than importing) to a debtor nation (having to import more than export). Once a nation begins to rely on foreign sources, it's national growth begins to slump. Just look at China, they are heavily a creditor nation thanks to America, it's neighbors, and even Europe. You can qoute me on this in the future: (I have nothing against China) sure, they have a free market economy; but, eventually, the Chinese environmental problems and its harsh abuse on religious groups and ethnic groups will lead to its collapse. And when that happens, you can bet the world economy will collapse as well. Globalization is a beautiful product of the late 20th century, but it also has its flaws as well. All it takes is a global collapse for radical totalitarian and authoritarian states to pop-up all over the world. That's all it takes. 

Edit: And history proves that. The 1920s anyone?

[Voar Tok 4]

A depression will happen, but a total economic failure may not. Because the US Dollar is the currency standard of the world right now, even though it's not the strongest out there, the health of the world economy will ultimately depend on New York City and the stock exchange. If China were to fall and NYC were to remain financially there, then we probably wouldn't have a second Great Depression. If the US economy collapses, then everything goes. Basically, a global economic meltdown would happen something like this:

US economy collapses, and China collapses

China collapses, and surrounding Asia and England collapse (the English bit is based on stuff from a Brit)

England collapses, and Europe collapses

Europe collapses, and the Middle East collapses

Middle East collapses, resulting in no one having adequate oil to run the industries, so total rock bottom collapse

[Micah 16]

A China collapse would cause an American collapse. An American collapse would cause a Middle Eastern collapse (oil). A Middle Eastern collapse would lead to a worldwide collapse. And many people don't realize this, but it only takes a day for the world to turn upside down.

When it comes to collapses, it doesn't matter what type of economy you have. In a global collapse, countries like North Korea would probably succeed over others since it isn't entirely dependent on other countries as much as other nations are.

[MrFingers 0]

as long as your economy has any dependence on international trade or money flows, a worldwide collapse will inevitably affect you.

[Voar Tok 4]

Originally posted by: Micah A China collapse would cause an American collapse. An American collapse would cause a Middle Eastern collapse (oil). A Middle Eastern collapse would lead to a worldwide collapse. And many people don't realize this, but it only takes a day for the world to turn upside down.

When it comes to collapses, it doesn't matter what type of economy you have. In a global collapse, countries like North Korea would probably succeed over others since it isn't entirely dependent on other countries as much as other nations are.quote>

If we continue to rely on China as heavily as we do or even more so in the future, a China collapse could easily start a world wide depression.  I still maintain that it's not guaranteed though for different reasons.  About the Middle East though - America may be their largest buyer, but in the event of a worldwide economic disaster, they wouldn't feel the total effects of a world collapse until Europe fell, because the Middle East relies on Europe more heavily than any other region of the world.  Why? The Middle East buys most of it's supplies from there.  There's a principle in business that if one of your major customers dries up, it may be possible to make it if you make a fast move to get lots of little ones.  If your suppliers dry up, you're pretty much hosed unless you can find a new one almost immediately.  Granted, if the US falls, everyone else falls from a chain reaction.

[crazyyaya 4]

The Us economy hasn't slowed, the WORLD economy has grown, extremely fast, The robust US economy is marked in red. trillions of dollars of debt.It sad how the greatest capitalist country in the world is being taken advantagive of by a socialist country like China.

[Micah 16]

You mean Communists? Communists China?

[coolotter88 2]

IIRC, the yuan is tightly tied to the US dollar...it is logical if the US collapsed, China would collapse (and North Korea wouldn't be too happy either because all their supplies come from China)

but IIRC, didn't the global "sell-off" a couple weeks ago start when the shanghai stock exchange fell? then the european exchanges fell as a result of asian stocks falling? then the sell-off hit the US.

[Duke87 1,070]

Well, it isn't the US economy that's trillions of dollars in debt, it's the US government. Through the 20th century and into the 21st, the federal government's size and power have grown by leaps and bounds... a lot more federal programs, and thus a lot more spending. The advent of an income tax initially offset that spending, but the creation of more and more programs, and the increased usage of programs like social security and medicare due to an aging population has brought us to a point where balancing the budget would take radical changes, higher taxes for people and decreased spending. For the time being, our debt is stable since China is giving us basically infinite credit.... but should China's economy take a downturn, they may start calling us up on some of those huge loans they've given us.... and if that happens, we simply can't pay them back. The US government would all of a sudden be bankrupt. The national debt at the end of fiscal year 2006 was $8,451,351,000,000, about 8.45 trillion. The government gets a bit less than 2.5 trillion a year from taxes... so if we were to suspend spending on everything, it would take 3 to 4 years to reduce the debt to zero. Obviously, this can't realistically be done. If we reduced federal funding to its 1970 level (1 trillion), it would take 6 years. This would still mean cutting spending by almost 2/3rds, though. Fact is, we're constantly digging our grave deeper and deeper financially... and it's only a matter of time before the chickens come home to roost on that one.

[coolotter88 2]

china will probably realize that calling the US up on the debts probably isn't too good of an idea...unless, germany and all the other countries that loaned china money to loan the US (i believe china is in debt by about 1 trillion dollars also) start asking china for cash and china needing some money, demands the US cough up the dough...

[kibblewitbit 0]

reagan once said :a communist is someone who reads marx and lenin, an anticommunist is someone who understands marx and lenin

[MrFingers 0]

yeah, I love that quote.

[MrFingers 0]

Ludwig von Mises: "Capitalism and socialism are two distinct patterns of social organization. Private control of the means of production and public control are contradictory notions and not merely contrary notions. There is no such thing as a mixed economy, a system that would stand midway between capitalism and socialism." - The Anti-Capitalistic Mentality ie, they are mutually exclusive.

[Psycho_Teddy 25]

Coolotter, here are some more recent unemployment tables for you. If you notice, the trend is the same overall, unemployment is on the rise in America. Most of the states listed have shown a steady trend of unemployment increase over the years, and in the nation's current state, is likely to continue rising. Also, this is from the USDL, straight from the source...

I think another problem that hasn't been discussed is the employer side of the situation. Many employers, due to decreased sales and lost revenues (especially in the private sector) have had to lay off several of their employees, and in many other cases, fire them. I think that the main cause is no longer outsourcing (although it need not be ignored by any means), but the current state of the economy. I think that candidates such as Clinton and Obama will help the economy with their revised healthcare plans in a way they have not yet foreseen. If the American people aren't being bilked out of $100 to $200 per week health insurance bills, the amount of spending will increase dramatically, and things will take a turn for the better, for once in the last eight years.

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/laus.t03.htm

[EDIT]: Grr... Stupid links... X(

[saltandsauce 0]

if you actually deserve benefits then yuo are entitled to them however it is the combination of benefits that make people lazy if you only got £15 a week (average UK pension) then you would want to find a job so you could earn more but if you claim incapacity benefit, disability benefit, discriminatory benefit, heating allowance (winter only) then it amounts to somewhere near £60 a week which will end as more than you would get if you worked for it. The Tories hae decided to copy NYC on benefits by making long term unemployment benefit claimants do community service which is essentially a job to get those benefits

if i could choose i would have a lot of nationalised services such as healthcare ,education, policing, and rails (BR willl never return though) and bus regulation but with things like the co-operative a worker owned chain of shops and corner shops, independant stores and country sized companies (no multinationals) so the countrys economy was independant progressive taxes such as VAT and fuel duty are proportional to the people who pay it the rich will buy more non food items and will pay more tax and the poor will not buy many luxuries and will pay less tax so an equal chunk is taken out of everyones payslip

and for factories to employ people making the product since there is a small sense of pride in making physical things although screwing bolt 62 is not fun (you could watch ships being launched in schools) plus it means its a safe bet for a job

[MrFingers 0]

don't think socialised healthcare is going to fix anything, rather the opposite. the economic problems today boil down to monetary policy.

[LarksTonguesInAspic 28]

Originally posted by: Duke87 Well, it isn't the US economy that's trillions of dollars in debt, it's the US government. Through the 20th century and into the 21st, the federal government's size and power have grown by leaps and bounds... a lot more federal programs, and thus a lot more spending. The advent of an income tax initially offset that spending, but the creation of more and more programs, and the increased usage of programs like social security and medicare due to an aging population has brought us to a point where balancing the budget would take radical changes, higher taxes for people and decreased spending. For the time being, our debt is stable since China is giving us basically infinite credit.... but should China's economy take a downturn, they may start calling us up on some of those huge loans they've given us.... and if that happens, we simply can't pay them back. The US government would all of a sudden be bankrupt. The national debt at the end of fiscal year 2006 was $8,451,351,000,000, about 8.45 trillion. The government gets a bit less than 2.5 trillion a year from taxes... so if we were to suspend spending on everything, it would take 3 to 4 years to reduce the debt to zero. Obviously, this can't realistically be done. If we reduced federal funding to its 1970 level (1 trillion), it would take 6 years. This would still mean cutting spending by almost 2/3rds, though. Fact is, we're constantly digging our grave deeper and deeper financially... and it's only a matter of time before the chickens come home to roost on that one.quote>

 

I blued the points that tie into what I have believed for a long time...

1) The Fed gov't has long exceeded its Contstitutional authority, on size, spending, and regulation.

2) The gov't has been bankrupt since the end of WWII, and they have been playing a shell game ever since.

3)The income tax was supposed to be short term, for only a few years. LOL!

4)If we returned the gov't to its Constitutional boundaries, 2/3 of it would disappear.

 But, many people would have an absolute stroke if the Dept of Education, Dept of Labor, or the IRS (not to mention federal gun laws) were to suddenly be struck down as unconstitutional. Even though they all are.

[belfastuniguy 18]

America does have low unemployment on a national level - 4.7% in November 2007 (The Economist)

However that hides the fact that some states have very high unemployment, Michigan has an unemployment rate of 7.4% and Mississippi with 6.2%. So simply stating the US has low unemployment is inaccurate.

The recent slump in the American economy is due to several factors. Manufacturing decline has been very important from ships, cars, electronics. It is very very rare you see consumer goods that are 'Made in America' just like the case in Europe, though Europe has managed to sustain certain manufacturing sectors. Mainly those needing quality workers and good levels of technology and ability.

The recent sub-prime crisis has had very important consequences for American business and and economies around the world. Though of course US banks have been much more vulnerable. 2008 is going to be a difficult year for economies round the world.

China itself is not immune, they depend on the success of developed nations continuing and their populations getting richer. Otherwise they have no market for all the wonder electronic devices and gadgets, toys consumer goods in general.

I agree that a a crisis in China would have worldwide repercussions for all economies, whether those that trade with China or the countries that China itself has invested it, mainly developing nations. I do not predict a collapse in China or indeed anywhere around the world for the next couple of years. Though natural economic cycles cannot be avoided and one will occur eventaully.

In recent years the world economy, as previously stated, has grown and for some countries such as India, the UK, China, Australia and Ireland they have benefited a great deal. America on the other hand has not. They have to a degree but not as such as the aforementioned nations. Again there are many reasons for this, all too long and complicated to go into though. It doesn't help that American businesses have the bleakest outlook for this year and the lowest confidence index than businessmen/women in other countries.

In December American manufacturing had its worst month in over five years and housing sales have slumped by over 9%. The American economy is not in good health and this year is going to be very tough for the USA.

[MrFingers 0]

of course there are a number of contributing factors to the current problems, but by far the biggest problem is the Federal Reserve. Simply its existence. Look up the: Austrian theory of the business cycle. that explains it well.

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 7, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[MrFingers 0]

Education is important for any society, because it benefits everyone and not just the people who receive it. But it's not a right. You only have a right to your life, liberty, and property.

The problem with a dept of education is the same general problem with a dept of healthcare. It makes it more expensive, degrades the quality, and limits choices. there is another problem though unique to education, in that a nationalised service will open the door for State miseducation and indoctrination. For example; most americans have the most bizarre view of their own history, even deifying their worst president - lincoln. that is only the case because it appeals to Statism.

[Glenni 1,447]

I think that a country which runs on a mix of Socialism and Capitalist is the way to go, you can't just have Socialism, neither can you run entirely based on Capitalism.

Just take a look at the country where i live.

The Norwegian Goverment owns 60-70% of the shares for StatoilHydro , Norway's largest petroleum company, most of that money is put into an account for saving for future generation, just in case Norway gets into a bad situation, as we have done in the past.

I get my education from the Goverment, i don't have to pay anything for it either. My family is not poor, so we could probably afford private schools, but why? Why should i go to a private school, when we have such a great education system here? When everyone, rich or poor can use it?

Why should my granddad pay for getting heart treatments? i know a similar case where someone in the US had the same problems with their heart (i don't know quite what problem it is) but he had to spend $4 million on it, forcing him to sell his home and live at his grown up kids. And as a total contrast, my granddad gets the treatment for free, and he is already  showing signs of getting well.

Haukeland Universitets Sykehus,  in Bergen,Norway one of the world's best hospitals at treating heart problems and burn injuries is Goverment run, isn't that funny? Because goverment hospitals are just dirty and grimy like they were in the states, right?

Another fine example is Rikshospitalet in Oslo

Women get a full year for maternity leave here, and they even have rights for getting their monthly wages from their employeer, wether it's from the Goverment or private.

People unable to use mass transit, like handicapped people using wheel chairs can get their own customfit( usually a van with the usual "Loading" ramp like thing) car from the Goverment, without having to pay a dime.

Some of you who think that socialism is all just a load of crap should come over here, try to get a feel of how good socialism, not the scare-propaganda about the old USSR goverment run crap and how socialism is wrong, because it isn't.

Just think of all the money the Goverment has spent on one person alone, just providing all necessary for that person in school costs around £450000 a YEAR! And that's just one person, just think about all the other 800 students in my school for example, or the total amount in my town.

You can imagine the rest, free dentists until you're 18

Free healthcare

And many other things.

All that costs millions, but it's worth it. Because a healthy and well educated people is important.

[belfastuniguy 18]

if i could choose i would have a lot of nationalised services such as healthcare ,education, policing, and rails (BR willl never return though) and bus regulation but with things like the co-operative a worker owned chain of shops and corner shops, independant stores and country sized companies (no multinationals) so the countrys economy was independant progressive taxes such as VAT and fuel duty are proportional to the people who pay it the rich will buy more non food items and will pay more tax and the poor will not buy many luxuries and will pay less tax so an equal chunk is taken out of everyones payslipquote>

That type of economic structure does not work, nationalised corporations and industries breeds inefficiently, lack of customer service, competition and various other things. Things on the railway in the UK are not perfect but the privatisation of UK companies in the 80's and 90's has had massive benefits. Before it the telephone provision in the UK was terrible and vastly overcharged. Now with national competition and private investment in the network the UK has one of the best telecommunication networks in the world and in several years will have a superior network that far exceeds that of many of our European neighbours when the 21CN Network British Telecom is developing is finished.

Nationalisation is a drain on the economy and tax revenue and a waste of time and money and I would hate to see the UK return to a 1960's/1970's style econony when we were the poorer nation of Europe, now we are the second largest and wealthiest. London as a result has become the most important centre on earth and the LSE (Stock Exchange) handles more company flotations than any other.

Progressive taxation on petrol is unfair as everyone uses it whether rich or poor and simply charging more for petrol from wealthier people is not fair in any way. The rich do pay more, the earn more and as such they pay more tax into the UK economy. While progressive taxation on income has merits it is also heavily damaging to a national economy and leads to people with money moving out and that causes immense problems for the country.

The UK is no longer a early 20th century society, the world has moved on and so has the UK and indeed we have done very well as a result, to return to nationalisation would be a disaster for the United Kingdom.

EDIT - I agree with Glenni, a mix of capitalist and socialism is the best way. Just like Norway and the UK and indeed most of Europe.

Not everything is perfect but they are pretty good, I can only speak from experience in Northern Ireland. We have some of the UK's best hospitals, one of the finest and most advanced cancer research and treatment centres in Europe, the UK's highest education standards (though that is due to our different education system) all paid and maintained by the government for the benefit of the Northern Irish people and the same is the case across the UK and Europe.

My family are pretty comfortable and we have done very well, but my education was all paid for by the government as is the majority of  my university education. If in an accident I would be taken to a modern and clean hospital and no matter operation or care I need I will not have to pay a penny for it.