San Francisco's Chinese Bridge

[javacontour]

Originally Posted By: buster
Well, it's certainly not regulations that are holding us back. I'm amazed that is still taken seriously.


I think it plays a role. I was listening to NPR about a month ago when some horrible jobs numbers came out. One of the points was out of the hundreds of applications to build factories here in the US this year only three had been processed by the EPA.

Now I'm not saying we should just ignore environmental concerns. What I'm suggesting is that let's have intelligent regulations that are effective at both keeping America clean AND putting folks back to work.

Having applications to build a plant stuck in a bureaucracy is not going to accomplish either.

I don't think NPR could be accused of being a right wing biased news source, for what it's worth.

 

[Al]

Originally Posted By: buster
Well, it's certainly not regulations that are holding us back. I'm amazed that is still taken seriously.

There is an unbiased source

Its taken seriously only by people that can walk and chew gum at the same time. Unfortunately they are a dying breed.

 

[buster]

I think it's taken seriously by people that are clueless personally. There are cases where there are too many regulations as well. No one denies that. To suggest that all of a sudden in 2008 inreases in regulations have prevented job s is laughable.

 

[CivicFan]

From what I have read, regulations do not have a negative or positive impact on job creation. Since these are blanket rules covering all, it does not give economic advantage or disadvantage to any particular player in the market.

But I think it is a diversion from the issue at hand which is outsourcing a large infrastructure project to a foreign entity.

 

[Tempest]

Originally Posted By: CivicFan
From what I have read, regulations do not have a negative or positive impact on job creation. Since these are blanket rules covering all, it does not give economic advantage or disadvantage to any particular player in the market.

Then a fully centralized economy should be just as efficient as free market one and generate just as much wealth?

Regulations = cost. Higher the cost, the lower the profit, and fewer people get hired. Does what you have read refute that?

 

[buster]

There is no free market. Stop making things up Tempest.

 

[Tempest]

Originally Posted By: buster
There is no free market. Stop making things up Tempest.

So then the level of government involvement in an economy has no bearing on how successful that economy is?

 

[CivicFan]

Originally Posted By: Tempest
Originally Posted By: buster
There is no free market. Stop making things up Tempest.

So then the level of government involvement in an economy has no bearing on how successful that economy is?


Empirically, the jury is still out.

For example, the Libertarian utopia of Somalia has very little government intervention but is not the most advanced economy in the world.

On the other hand, a highly regulated economic environment like Singapore has an advanced economy.

 

[Tempest]

Originally Posted By: CivicFan
Originally Posted By: Tempest
Originally Posted By: buster
There is no free market. Stop making things up Tempest.

So then the level of government involvement in an economy has no bearing on how successful that economy is?


Empirically, the jury is still out.

For example, the Libertarian utopia of Somalia has very little government intervention but is not the most advanced economy in the world.

On the other hand, a highly regulated economic environment like Singapore has an advanced economy.

Somalia is ruled by a bunch of dictators that do not respect the rule of law, private property rights, right to contract....of their people. So it is nothing close to a libertarian society. Your lack of understanding on this simple point skews your view of things.

On the other hand, Singapore has little social/political freedom, but their economic freedom is quite high. This according to a group that is bias against their political oppression.
http://www.heritage.org/index/ranking

 

[grampi]

It's time to get China out of every aspect of our lives and start doing and producing things ourselves!

 

[Al]

Originally Posted By: CivicFan
From what I have read, regulations do not have a negative or positive impact on job creation.

Well that's what you "read". As someone who has WORKED in business for 32 years (more if you consider part time work)..I don't have to "read" about it. I saw and lived it.

You couldn't be more wrong.

 

[PandaBear]

Originally Posted By: Tempest
Somalia is ruled by a bunch of dictators that do not respect the rule of law, private property rights, right to contract....of their people. So it is nothing close to a libertarian society. Your lack of understanding on this simple point skews your view of things.

On the other hand, Singapore has little social/political freedom, but their economic freedom is quite high. This according to a group that is bias against their political oppression.


Like it or not, advanced economy and high standard of living do not exist without a government. If you want a small government, you have to live in a small country, that's the fact of life.

Just like in the business world, it is impossible to have a small management with little overhead when you have a lot of people. It is fundamental limit of the scalability.

If you want small government with minimal intrusion in your life, there are lots of places you can go to. Puerto Rico do not pay federal tax and is still part of the US if you want to be protected. There is no military in Costa Rica and dollar stretch a long way over there.

 

[javacontour]

Originally Posted By: PandaBear
Originally Posted By: Tempest
Somalia is ruled by a bunch of dictators that do not respect the rule of law, private property rights, right to contract....of their people. So it is nothing close to a libertarian society. Your lack of understanding on this simple point skews your view of things.

On the other hand, Singapore has little social/political freedom, but their economic freedom is quite high. This according to a group that is bias against their political oppression.


Like it or not, advanced economy and high standard of living do not exist without a government. If you want a small government, you have to live in a small country, that's the fact of life.

Just like in the business world, it is impossible to have a small management with little overhead when you have a lot of people. It is fundamental limit of the scalability.

If you want small government with minimal intrusion in your life, there are lots of places you can go to. Puerto Rico do not pay federal tax and is still part of the US if you want to be protected. There is no military in Costa Rica and dollar stretch a long way over there.


I think we have to define what people mean by "small government."

I think many, like me are saying small FEDERAL government. Let the states do most of the day to day governing to address local issues and let the federal government focus on defense, foreign policy and the federal judiciary.

Since most of our states are the size of nations, for those states to be competitive, shouldn't they be setting their own policies for most things?

You can have large state government if a state wants to. It's simply my opinion that at the federal level, they should do a few overarching things, and do them very well. I.E. defense, foreign policy, the federal judiciary making sure everything is constitutional, etc.

 

[Tempest]

Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
Originally Posted By: PandaBear


Then why isn't the steel producers' state come in and pay a subsidies to make up for the difference in bidding?



That is ludicrous! Why should we be subsidizing the cost between third and first world labour????

The United States is a FIRST WORLD NATION. People who live there should expect to be paid according to that standard. You do NOT cross-shop first and third world labour. It shouldn't be subsidized, because the "choice" shouldn't exist in the first place. Government should not, at any level, have the "choice" to SCREW (and in this case HARD) American tax payers out of working on an American project in an American city, residing in an American state, in which THEY PAY THE TAXES TO BUILD!!

The fact that this undertaking was even allowed to happen speaks VOLUMES as to how screwed up this whole system is.

All government projects take money out of the pockets of productive people (evil profit). So they always subsidize whomever they purchase things from with tax payer money.

Sending this to the lowest bidder makes people richer because it lowers the amount of money extracted from people's pockets. Paying more money for "jobs" simply makes no sense as the amount of people actually paying for this project doesn't change.

Government jobs don't create wealth, they extract it.

 

[mechanicx]

Originally Posted By: Tempest

Sending this to the lowest bidder makes people richer because it lowers the amount of money extracted from people's pockets. Paying more money for "jobs" simply makes no sense as the amount of people actually paying for this project doesn't change.


By that logic if we send everything to the lowest bidder China it will make people richest. That is if you define "people" as the government officials in China. Your argument would only be true if the bidder was an American and didn't make a low bid off the backs of all its employees. Your definition of people seems to be a small ownership class of any nationality and in the short-term the consumer. Whether or not something is a value and worth paying more depends on where the money is going, quality etc.


Quote:
Government jobs don't create wealth, they extract it.

It depends but outsourced jobs don't create weath they extract it. But you define wealth as some individual located anywhere taking a profit.

 

[PandaBear]

Originally Posted By: Tempest
All government projects take money out of the pockets of productive people (evil profit). So they always subsidize whomever they purchase things from with tax payer money.

Sending this to the lowest bidder makes people richer because it lowers the amount of money extracted from people's pockets. Paying more money for "jobs" simply makes no sense as the amount of people actually paying for this project doesn't change.

Government jobs don't create wealth, they extract it.


But you do admit that a bridge is something that is necessary but isn't doable with private investors, right?

And building a 7B bridge is something that a small gov will absolutely fail on, right?

And the bridge is creating wealth (compare to using boats or wall off transportation) that businesses and citizens are relying or leeching on, right?

So how is it not creating wealth?

 

[Al]

Originally Posted By: mechanicx


Quote:
Government jobs don't create wealth, they extract it.

It depends but outsourced jobs don't create weath they extract it. But you define wealth as some individual located anywhere taking a profit.

What's so hard to understand?..If a company saves money on a product (by outsourcing) the company profits along with its American shareholders, American workers, and American consumers who buy the product at a cheaper price.

And No; those workers who do not work for the company or save money by the product do not benefit. Although they might as a worker for another American company that benefits by the first company's profits.

Sucks that some lose their jobs but the taxes that the profitable company pays help pay unemployment insurance.

 

[Tempest]

Originally Posted By: PandaBear

But you do admit that a bridge is something that is necessary but isn't doable with private investors, right? Possibly doable with a toll system. Certainly not for free. Governments make a profit on toll bridges. In this case, government is determining the necessity of the bridge. If the original government paid for bridge didn't set up the economic environment the way it is, how necessary would this bridge be?

And building a 7B bridge is something that a small gov will absolutely fail on, right? California is not a small government. The people in the Bay Area are being heavily subsidized by the rest of the State on this project. At least they aren't using Fed funds for this.

And the bridge is creating wealth (compare to using boats or wall off transportation) that businesses and citizens are relying or leeching on, right? What is the payback on this bridge for the guy in Chula Vista who's tax dollars are going to this?

So how is it not creating wealth?

 

[Tempest]

Originally Posted By: mechanicx

By that logic if we send everything to the lowest bidder China it will make people richest. That is if you define "people" as the government officials in China. Your argument would only be true if the bidder was an American and didn't make a low bid off the backs of all its employees. Your definition of people seems to be a small ownership class of any nationality and in the short-term the consumer. Whether or not something is a value and worth paying more depends on where the money is going, quality etc.

I read several times and couldn't make heads nor tails out of it.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: Al
Originally Posted By: mechanicx


Quote:
Government jobs don't create wealth, they extract it.

It depends but outsourced jobs don't create weath they extract it. But you define wealth as some individual located anywhere taking a profit.

What's so hard to understand?..If a company saves money on a product (by outsourcing) the company profits along with its American shareholders, American workers, and American consumers who buy the product at a cheaper price.

And No; those workers who do not work for the company or save money by the product do not benefit. Although they might as a worker for another American company that benefits by the first company's profits.

Sucks that some lose their jobs but the taxes that the profitable company pays help pay unemployment insurance.


If a company out-sources, it has fewer American workers. Thus fewer tax-payers, fewer people making money that then cycle that money back into the economy. Instead, there is a money DRAIN, where the money LEAVES the country, never to return. So instead of recycling money (perhaps at a higher cost, and slightly reduced profits) by putting that money back into the pockets of American workers, you instead choose to increase profits and send the difference overseas, instead of back into the American economy.

Does that not sound like an exercise in failure to you?