"Senator Obama and I have had and argued our differences, and he has prevailed. No doubt many of those differences remain. These are difficult times for our country. And I pledge to him tonight to do all in my power to help him lead us through the many challenges we face. I urge all Americans who supported me to join me in not just congratulating him, but offering our next president our good will and earnest effort to find ways to come together to find the necessary compromises to bridge our differences and help restore our prosperity, defend our security in a dangerous world, and leave our children and grandchildren a stronger, better country than we inherited. Whatever our differences, we are fellow Americans. And please believe me when I say no association has ever meant more to me than that."
- John McCain, from his concession speech last Tuesday
"There are three seats in the House and two in the Senate that still hang in the balance. Winning these races and strengthening our Republican numbers in both chambers of Congress is critical to blocking Barack Obama’s left-wing agenda . . .The Obama-Biden Democrats and their liberal special interest allies are trying to steal these election victories from Republicans. . .Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi are hoping to add more seats to the Democrats’ Senate and House majorities so they can steamroll our opposition to their extreme, ultraliberal schemes. . . Every Republican vote we can add now will help our Party stop the Obama Democrats’ leftist policies in the U.S. Congress. "
- Mike Duncan (RNC Chairman), from an email I got from him yesterday soliciting me for donations to the RNC.
You can really feel the goodwill and bipartisanship, can't you?
First of all, let me just say that the reason I get emails from the RNC is because I gave $25 to John McCain during the primaries. And it turned out to be some of the best $25 I ever spent, just for the information and insight into the campaign that it provided. It was quite humorous over the last 6 months to get back to back emails; one from the Obama campaign and one from the McCain campaign, with subjects like "Help us defeat Obama and the Democrats" next to "Help us defeat John McCain and the Repiblicans."
In any case, back to the quotes. I certainly don't expect the GOP to suddenly start agreeing with everything the Democrats say. I just think that it shouldn't be too much to ask to, you know, wait until there actually is legislation out there to oppose. Otherwise you're basically just defining your party as "we're against whatever the Democrats are for". In addition to being really petty, that doesn't sound like a very good way to govern or reconnect with the American public. And I like the use of the word "schemes" in describing Reid and Pelosi. Makes them sound like some silent picture-era villains sitting in Congress twirling their handlebar moustaches. And finally, I really like how they say that Democrats are "trying to steal these elections." Yes, their cunning plan to get more votes than their opponent is diabolical indeed.
I understand that politics is a contact sport, but there's a lot of other paths to take here. Why not just play up the checks and balances angle, as in "our government functions best when voices from both sides of the aisle are heard. We need these elections to keep our voices from being drowned out."? Or, considering the beating they endured last Tuesday, the GOP could approach it from the angle of "you have spoken, and we have heard you. With your help we will renew this party and this country." Overall, this is just another illustration of the fact that the Republicans simply don't know how to appeal to centrists and independents anymore. They can't get it through their thick skulls that there are a lot of people (as of today a majority, in fact) that don't automatically equate the Democrats with a force that needs to be stopped at all costs. As with the Sarah Palin pick, this kind of communication does very well at energizing your base but that base by itself is simply not sufficient to win federal elections anymore (north of the Mason-Dixon line anyway). Until they realize that, there will continue to be dark days ahead for the GOP.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
32 comments:
"the Obama-Biden Democrats and their liberal special interest allies..."
I hate crap like this. This statement says that the Democrats have special interest allies and the Republicans do not. At least that is what it tries to do. It tries to ignore the fact that for pretty much ANY special interest group supporting one side, there is another group supporting the opposing argument on the other side.
I occasionally turn on Republican radio just to hear the other side of the argument, and some of the stuff over there (on WIND 560AM) is borderline psychotic. Also, I heard one woman say "I don't watch the news or read the newspapers, I normally just get my information from talk radio..." I wanted to punch MYSELF in the head when I heard that. It is like saying you get your news from blogs and message boards. *shudder*
(Itunes just played ACDC's 'Big Guns' from the 'Last Action Hero' soundtrack. What a great movie.)
I'm feeling very pessimistic right now so I'm just gonna say: People are frustrating, horrible little buggers.
A lesson in tolerance?
http://tinyurl.com/6n2xkx
That's largely just an updated version of Jane Elliot's famous blue-eyes/brown-eyes experiment .
Children don't tend to be very forgiving about individualism at that age. I can certainly attest to that, as I was mercilessly made fun of for my fashion choices throughout junior high and early high school.
(Of course I still got made fun of for it after that, I just not longer cared).
I would also have liked to have seen what would have happend if she'd worn shirts that said "Nader" or "Barr" but I'm thinking those would have been largely ignored (like Nader and Barr themselves were).
Not to put too fine a point on it, but it wasn't confined to just comments by other children. Besides, where are these kids getting their political voice from? How many 8th graders have a firm grasp on such complex concepts as monetary policy, foreign relations, and social agenda? Now, I'm sure you all had well thought out positions on those topics, but we're talking about "normal" kids here.
They get their opinions from their parents, teachers, and Sway on MTV.
Also, you state that kids aren't very forgiving of "individualism", and I agree with that. However, it does prejudicially assume that anyone not on board the O train is so far from the "norm" that that person is now an "individual" rather than one with ALMOST half the voting public in the same camp.
There's a video on YouTube showing a parade of McCain supporters walking the streets of New York (where they most assuredly ARE in the minority), and the attacks by other adults are shameful.
This lack of decency toward fellow Americans is certainly not sequestered to American middle schools.
And Scrooge McDuck, I thought the yellow bird feet and top hat were an excellent fashion choice. Of course, I've got a large collection of Hawaiian shirts that prove my fashion sensibilities are a little left of center too.
Yeah, I saw that article too. I'm not surprised that's how it went down. I don't know if the problem's more acute here in the U.S. or if it's this way in any country, but people tend to associate personality types with political parties, instead of being able to separate out the issues. It's all left/right, black/white, good/bad. Makes it easier on our little lazy brains but the world isn't like that and I think it's irresponsible of us to navigate life that way.
OK, well I definitely agree that the less than civil attitudes that supporters often have towards their opposition are not merely confined to schools. And I certainly think it's disgraceful no matter what side it comes from. I didn't like it when some people at the Obama rally booed McCain during his speech and I didn't like it when McCain's supporters booed Obama's name during the same speech.
Now, as far as my "individualism" comment, it's all about context. We're talking about a school in Obama's home state that is probably no more than a 20-minute drive from his house. The article even says "She noticed that fellow students at Gwendolyn Brooks Middle School overwhelmingly supported Barack Obama for president." By definition, when you are expressing an opinion that goes against that which the group "overwhelmingly supports" you are part of a minority. Now, if we're talking about a school in Alabama (something of an oxymoron) or Texas then you'd be in the minority as an Obama supporter. The "global" numbers don't matter as much as the "local" numbers do.
I was going to write on the topic, then decided the whole thing is bullshit.
When you boil it down, none of this is about politics in general, this campaign in general, or either of the candidates specifically.
This has to do with a particularly nasty side of human nature that generally shows itself only in politics and sports.
It is the inability of MOST people to win graciously or lose with dignity.
When people are passionate about something, and then ultimately they win, they can be unbearable. It feels good to gloat, no matter how wrong it is or inappropriate. For some reason it just feels good to rub it in the other guys face. And on the opposite side, it feels twice as horrible to be passionate about something and then lose. And then when someone gloats it makes you want to fight back.
I'll admit a small amount of such behavior when a certain team won a certain sporting even in a certain year between 2004 and 2006.
Long story short:
People are asses.
The more they care about something (or pretend to care about it in the case of 8th graders) the bigger asses they become.
I am more upset at the teacher that advised the student to do the project. It is like the teacher decided to take the thing most likely to polarize a school and put it on the shoulder of an 8th grader. Middle school is not the place for social experimentation.
John:
Let go of that trauma from your childhood. You can rest assured that in 100 years hipsters in Brooklyn will be rocking the same gear you were wearing back in Hadley, and getting laid for it. Our greatest fashion geniuses are rarely appreciated during their lifetimes.
I would just like to say I highly approve of and encourage the detour we have made into the study of human nature. As Depeche Mode put it: "People are people so why should it be / You and I should get along so awfully?"
And also, yes, I am a little drunk. :) (Wine night with some coworker/friend-types tonight.)
So Becky, just so I'm clear, your tipsy-ness has led you to 1) read my blog and 2) quote Depeche Mode on it. I'm still debating which of those I find more odd. Both are pretty funny though.
I find more and more that when I hear the phrase "we need to find a bipartisan solution to this problem" far too often it is just a thinly veiled code for "our opposition needs to realize that they are wrong and come over to our side."
will drunk-blog-commenting replace the drunk-dial?
Umm, seriously?
Not for the easily disturbed. OK for work though.
As someone else put it, tragic, and kind of awesome.
Bah; media sensationalism! The story opens by stating that the man "cut his own head off with a chainsaw" but then halfway down it clearly says "the blade was three quarters of the way through his neck." Well then he didn't cut it off did he? Sloppy Brits . . .I betcha an American would have figured out a way to not only get all the way through the neck but also have it set up for the severed head to roll into a Fed Ex box, seal itself, and get overnighted to the developer.
I couldn't help thinking as I read through it that it sounds like something straight out of a Saw movie.
"There's a new game
We like to play you see
A game with added reality
You treat me like a dog
Get me down on my knees
We call it master and servant..."
Is it irony that it's from the same album as "People are People"?
And I'm not drunnnk.
Mike, not sure your point. Are you trying to prove you’re more of a Depeche Mode nerd than I am? If so, you win. Or are you trying to discredit them as a source? ‘Cause even if the song’s about what it’s literally saying (although it’s so bluntly written I’m thinking it’s being used as a metaphor? Dunno..), well anyway, I’m pretty sure I’ve heard you say before (having worked at Lover’s Lane) that people into kinky stuff can be just as normal and reasonable as other people, and are often more accepting of others.
Meh.
What were we talking about here anyway? I don’t remember.
I have some discussion points. They are long and Becky-like so if that’s not your thing, you’ve been warned.
1. John, I asked you this already but I’m going to need more convincing. How exactly, if the current economic crisis is due (as in the 30s) to speculation and credit, is it not just screwing us over more to LOAN ourselves the money we are missing? How is this not like going to the ATM for a credit advance to pay today’s groceries?
2. I haven't heard much about how the credit crunch intersects the auto industry. Houses, cars.... aren't they both things people have been able to buy in recent years with bad credit? So car dealerships have been engaging in predatory (or at least irresponsible) lending, just as much as the real estate industry?
3. Do you think the reason compelling leaders (I know, say what you will about Obama, but he has inspired enthusiasm on a scale—some have argued—that has not been seen since maybe MLK, JFK, and Bobby Kennedy)….. So do you think there is a reason why leaders with this quality seem to only come along once in a generation? If so, why? I saw a thing on PBS the other day about how Americans who lived through the King and Kennedy assassinations pretty much gave up on politics after that point. Is that why it took so long for another compelling leader to appear? Do we have to wait 40 years so that the leader, and the public, can come of age in a time period that has not gone through that experience of great hopes followed by disappointment?
4. I heard a clip from a Studs Terkel interview (who’s really good by the way and I totally want his job) where he was talking to people who had lived through the Depression. More than one person talked about how back then we were steps away from a revolution, just with how desperate people got. Crime went up because people were fighting just for their own survival. And I know that “bleeding heart liberals” such as myself are often accused of being apologists, but is this not another data point that shows how poverty can cause crime? (I’ll allow for the counterpoint that this is no excuse, that crime can be drawn down with a vigilant citizenry… but would you agree with the statement that a lack of resources tips the scales? You know, locusts engage in cannibalism when there’s too many of them and not enough food….) Also, I would take it a step further and argue that prolonged poverty and crime can cause secondary effects like gangs and corruption. Am I wrong?
5. Related: One guy said that he sees a real contrast between him and his kids, that back then, for him in the Depression, young people weren’t afraid to die. Now, young people aren’t afraid to kill. What would an American depression look like now? Discuss.
Not trying to prove anything. Just thought it funny that Depeche Mode had a song about loving and caring for your fellow man, despite your differences, as well as a song that celebrated sado-masochism.
There's no deep connection. I liked your post.
I also like your (long) questions, and I'm looking forward to John's answers!
It did get me thinking, though, on a kind of stream-of-consciousness level about the causal relationships to government programs, the economy, social trends, and so on...
It is difficult to pinpoint where exactly something went wrong in the wondrous experiment that is our nation, but I think the old adage of "the road to hell is paved with good intentions" rings especially true. It would be nice to help everyone that needed it. And it would be great to never have to worry about another person sleeping in a cold viaduct with an empty stomach. And to know that each and every sick child was being cared for. There's nothing bad with wishing for an end to every bit of suffering. But to expect someone else to do it is where I think our society goes wrong today.
There are so many people who need help, but "we" expect the government to do the heavy lifting. This separates us from the responsibility of actually doing some of it ourselves. Tell me which sounds better:
1) If each one of us paid a little more in taxes, we could eliminate hunger in the United States.
Or
2) If each of us donated a dozen cans of food to a homeless shelter, we could eliminate hunger in the United States.
See, the difference? But one involves us getting off our butts and driving... wait, my postal worker picked up a bunch of food last month. I didn't have to do anything! Hmmmm.
I'm not accusing anyone HERE of not volunteering, or being charitable, or whatever, but I know there are a lot of people out there NOT doing anything. I can tell because there are still hungry people.
Sorry, this was maybe slightly off topic because of the aforementioned stream-of-consciousness thingamajig.
Back on topic... I heard the question the other day, "if 'the government' wants to give all this money to the banks and auto manufacturers, wouldn't it be better spent going to the homeless? Or those who were going to lose their houses?
Based on the most recent ACTUAL numbers I could find this meant that if instead of giving banks money to cover "bad" loans, it went to people defaulting on their mortgages, each household would get $317,705.98.
If it went to the homeless, each one would get $1,041,840.31.
If each homeless person given this money was required to buy a home IN the process of foreclosure, there would be no more foreclosure crisis, each person being foreclosed upon could walk away with their credit intact, and get a fresh start. Perhaps in a home they could afford.
Yeah, I know there are so many holes in this plan it's ridiculous, but it did get me thinking about actually HOW MUCH MONEY is up for discussion. The eradication of homelessness vs. saving a bunch of mismanaged banks and auto companies (not to mention the good ole' golden parachute), who probably deserve to go under.
If you SPLIT the money between the homeless and the forclosures, each would get $243,462.76. That ought to get everyone caught up nicely, eh?
2) If each of us donated a dozen cans of food to a homeless shelter, we could eliminate hunger in the United States.
was supposed to read:
2) If each of us donated a dozen cans of food to a homeless shelter, we could eliminate hunger in the World.
Sorry.
Ooooh!! My eyes are getting all anticipatey and there is a curdling patriotism rising to the surface.
Don't know what that means. But I really liked your post. I think you speak to the heart of the conflict most Americans feel about who we are and where we're going--equally shared by Democrats and Republicans. And it is time for us to get our butts moving... something our generation has never done before. (Oooh, that kinda relates to my earlier question about leadership.)
See, this is what I like. Good old meaty discussion. Good at 2 am with some beers in front of a campfire; failing that, pretty cool even by yourself with some Triscuits and dip in front of a flickering computer screen.
Wow, I think this is definitely the first time where two comments have each been longer than the post they were connected to.
Anyway, there is just waaaaaaayyyyy too much for me to comment on everything so I will just cherry pick.
Becky:
1. First off, for a good explanation of exactly what is going on with the financial crisis check this interview out . The guy (Bill Ackman) does one of the best jobs I've heard of summarizing exactly what happened and the different options we have. As for your specific question: the short version is that we had bad options and worse options and I believe the bailout was just the bad option. The long version is . . . we can talk about it on Saturday.
2. There most definitely has been crossover to the auto industry . I have many thoughts on the auto industry and on a potential bailout. So many, in fact, that I'm going to make it a separate blog entry.
3. Let's use a poker analogy: the best hand to be dealt is pocket Aces. But just being dealt that hand doesn't mean you're going to win a huge pot or even win at all. It's all about when it happens. Similarly, I believe that *great* people are born everyday, but it takes the combination of a charismatic leader with a vision in a political climate where the people are ready and receptive to that. And, as always, a little bit of luck doesn't hurt. The civil rights movement didn't start because JFK got elected. But you can bet that if there had been no civil rights movement there would have been no JFK (at least not at that time).
4. Absolutely poverty causes an increase in crime. The argument is always about the best way to end poverty. I believe in the cliche "give a man a fish and he eats for a day; teach a man to fish and he eats for a lifetime." I believe in a social safety net, to a degree, but I'd much prefer it to be a safety trampoline. That gets harder to do every day because, well, we're running out of fish (both literally and figuratively).
5. *shrug*
Mike -
In short, what you are proposing there is basically demand-side economics; the exact opposite of supply-side economics that you profess to be so fond of. If we were truly just giving the money to Wall Street, I agree that your idea would work just as well. But if the bailout works like it's supposed to, it won't cost us much and it's possible the Fed might even make money.
The long version is...we can talk about it on Thanksgiving. : )
I wasn't actually proposing it, so much as examining it as a concept. As I said, there are a bunch of holes in it, and reality is always bungled up by that pesky free will crap. But I DO believe in examining all options before making a decision. For the record, I still haven't made up my mind on the bailout. There are so many variables involved it bottles the mind. I'm leaning toward being against it, though.
I'm still a supply side, free market, trickle down, Reaganomics, low tax believer.
As far as discussing during Thanksgiving, you're gonna have to clear that with Christy ;-)
So unbelievably off topic here but . . .
I am watching Seinfeld right now and in the episode Kramer and Newman are trying to sell some old records to a resale shop. The guy working the resale shop is Tobin Bell (aka Jigsaw from the Saw movies). It's hard to view the scene in the same way now. Actually, considering the Michael Richards racism rant that scene is now all kinds of weird. . .
If the U.S. auto industry failed, the Japanese auto industry would grow, right? So would that bump up the Japanese economy and then, in time, the Chinese and greater Asian economy? If so, would that prosperity eventually come back around to us?
Also, we should talk about unions while we're at it. 'Cause isn't that why Asian (and other offshore) industry kicks our butts at everything? More work, less pay? Laura's in China right now for business, meeting with a vendor. People there work like 18 hours a day and they live in 5-person dormitories actually on the factory campus. And they get paid like $90 a month.
Hello John's Blog! Becky told me I had to read all of her witty comments, so here I am. Actually, here I am in China. And yeah, Becky's right. You read in National Geographic all the time about Chinese peasants who move to the city to work 18 hours a day in a factory and send all their money home... And it's me they're working for. (really, all of you. Or at least any of you that own an ipod, a mac, a dell, wear clothing, etc...) I've had some realizations on this trip, and I will spell them out for you all systematic-like. (a la Becky).
1. We have taken all of our pollution and exported it to China. In the US we like to think of ourselves as being so environmentally friendly, and we get all warm and fuzzy thinking of the wonderful things we've done to clean up our planet. But in reality, what we've done is move all of the manufacturing of all the products we can't live without over to China. The air here is like soup. I could not see the sun today. You could tell that is was day time, but I had no idea at all where the sun was in the sky. It was disgusting and made me feel really guilty. And we get all angry at China for dumping toxic waste into their rivers, when really it is our waste they're dumping.
2. We just had a really long discussion at dinner about unions. I personally feel that they served a purpose back in the day, and at this point don't do anything except artificially support dying industries. I can't believe that the government is considering bailing out the car industry because they aren't able to compete in the modern marketplace. I think the money would be much better spent by sending every one of the Big 3's employees to college to learn something else. (The whole "teach a man to fish" thing. I'm a big fan.)
3. Furthermore, since when do we in America feel comfortable allowing the government to buy out private industries? I find it ironic that the largest move toward socialism in US history has occurred during a Republican administration. (And the largest increase in the size of government.) I kind of wish we could get back to the original pre-neocon Republican party. The supply-side/small-government/state's-rights Republican party. I don't like what the party has become.
4. I really loved that article about the middle school girl's tee shirt. That always makes me angry, the two-faced claim of acceptance. I always come back to a point I realized a while ago: both sides actually want to make the country a better place. You may disagree with how, but no one actually wants to destroy the country, and there are no grand conspiracy theories to "brainwash" the unwitting public. (John, love the silent movie handlebar mustache comment.) But the self-righteousness of both sides just grates on me. And the attacks on the other side, just for being on the other side. It's like rabid sports fans getting in a bar fight. If you take a step back, you realize how stupid it all really is. Can't we all just get along?
5. People drive like idiots here. And the pedestrians too, they just walk out in the road without looking. It's astonishing to me, cars will drive on the sidewalk, through crowds of people, to pass someone. Drivers will stop in the middle of the road for no reason. on the highway. Families of 5 will all climb on one motorbike, dive headlong into oncoming traffic, and then stop. And the cars just zoom around them, honking. This comment has nothing to do with anything, but it is just so amazing to me that I had to say something.
Ok, now it's time to go to bed. I think you all are just waking up, so have a happy day!
Yaaay!!!! New data!!! Goody.
Welcome Laura!
There's a lot about your post that I agree with. Totally in agreement about the Unions. You're absolutely right about the new socialism (although I think both parties share a lot of the blame on this one). In fact the only thing I truly have to take issue with is the comment on the US exporting its pollution to China.
To blame ourselves for the pollution in China is unfair to the people of China. They are a sovereign country, with their own laws and regulations. They have developed the amazing infrastructure that Obama is so enamored of. They are using peasant labor to build the coal fired power plants that blot out the sky. They are dumping industrial waste into their streams and rivers, spoiling any chance of irrigating crops with fresh water. They are polluting at such an extreme rate that the leading cause of death in China is now cancer. They are keeping their population in the dark about the dangers known, for at least the last 30 years, of industrial pollution.
If we have to take responsibility for China's lack of interest in their environment do we get to take credit for the GOOD things happening in China? Do we get the credit for DOUBLING their GDP in the last ten years? Do we get credit for the Billions of dollars of assistance we give freely to the people of China? Do we get the credit for their increasing momentum toward a free and open society?
No one ever gives us credit for the GOOD we do around the world. We only catch hell for the bad… and this isn’t even our fault!
The Chinese are going to have to take responsibility for their environment.
Isn't it true, though, that until we have the "green revolution" John mentioned (I think from the book Hot, Flat, and Crowded), that until that happens, forcing China to comply with strict environmental standards will increase the cost of doing business there? This would mean businesses would be inclined to pack up and move on to the next country that is willing (or able to get away with) polluting its environment in order to manufacture more cheaply. It seems to be that until every country has to jump through the same green hoops, and there is no cheaper, pollution-filled option, the cycle will continue... businesses always looking for a prettier bottom line.
This has me wondering... is it even *possible* to manufacture at the speed of U.S. (and world) consumption, in a green manner?
Yeah, it'd just cost a lot more. And Becky's right, the manufacturing would start to move to other countries who are trying to be green. It's actually already started. A lot of the companies that started in China are now moving to Vietnam because it's cheaper.
Mike, you are right though. As much as it is our pollution they're making, it's our money they're taking too. This beautiful airport lounge I'm sitting in now was paid for with American and European dollars, indirectly. You are right, it is their responsibility to put regulations in place if they want to clean up their country. But when that happens, and it becomes more expensive to make stuff here, it will move elsewhere. (The other big thing that will affect China's competitiveness is labor prices. People are cheap here now, but if they have more pressure for decent wages and benefits, costs would skyrocket. The double-edged sword of unions...)
Random comment: I saw a Real Live Chinese fire drill yesterday. We were driving from the factory back to the hotel, and in the middle of a big intersection with major traffic trying to get through (ignoring the traffic lights completely), there was a car with 4 Chinese men in it, stopped in the middle of the intersection. They all got out, switched seats (with horns blaring and cars veering all over the road to get around them), and got back in. I was dumbfounded. I wish I'd video taped it.
1. What???? The Chinese fire drill thing is real? I don't understand! Need more info. This does not make sense to do.
2. I like this Laura saying I am right about things. Improves my mood so quickly and easily--it's a good deal! Laura, for this purpose I would like to attach you to my boots and galosh you around with me all day.
Wow; take a few days off to drink beer and watch football and look how much I miss!
First of all: welcome Laura! Always good to have new readers and especially commenters.
Many of the points I had were already hit upon by multiple other people, so I'll just add where I think I can.
First of all, as Friedman says, right now we are not having a "green revolution" so much as a "green party." We kind of have this idea that we can switch to be "green" and no one will have to sacrifice anything or really alter their lifestyles in any meaningful. The change to fluorescent lightbulbs and the increased popularity of hybrid cars are certainly positive changes, but they are just the low-hanging fruit. Until we fundamentally alter the sources of our power grid, first-world countries will never achieve a truly sustainable lifestyle.
As for exporting our pollution, I agree with both Laura and Mike. The cheaper labor and materials influenced our companies to move there, but China welcomed us with open arms for the boost in their economy that they knew it would bring. Not to come off like an elitist American here (though I probably will) but it's kind of unfortunate that China and India's boom didn't wait about 15-20 years to happen. If we had the green technology ready and cheaply available, it's highly probable that they could have skipped over the "dirty" growing phase entirely. An example is cell phones. China never laid down a lot of land lines and by the time they had the capability to do so it just made a lot more sense to invest that in cell phones; so that's what they did. Of course, the flip side is that if China/India growth wasn't happening, we probably wouldn't have the level of green awareness that we do today.
As for unions, I've always been torn about them. On the one hand, everything I read about them seems to come down to them wanting more money/benefits for less work. On the other hand, I fully believe that in the absence of unions many managements would take every opportunity to exploit the labor force. Then we'd be looking to the government to set all the regulations for every industry and well... I think unions are the lesser evil there (or how about the slightly less incompetent?).
As for a raise in labor standards causing another migration of companies, sure that will happen in the short term. Laura mentioned Vietnam and that is the example most often used. I blogged about that earlier this year after reading the Greenspan book, but the thing is that there's actually not many "cheaper" countries left to move to. Sure, there are plenty of 3rd-world countries left (pretty much all of Africa) but the vast majority of those places are so far behind right now that they are not even in a position to accept and grow companies that want to outsource. Any gain to be made in cheaper materials/labor is more than offset by losses caused by security issues and lack of infrastructure. Furthermore, I think we're close (5-10 years) to reaching a tipping point where we'll reach something of a global consensus on what constitutes fair labor practices. When that happens, I highly doubt you'll see companies offshoring just to achieve 2-3 years of a competitive advantage. Once they become convinced that the labor battles they have in one country will still be present anywhere, they will adapt. And, in a free market, our role as consumers is to convince them of this via our purchasing power.
One other note on environmental issues. I am frustrated when I hear people say "it doesn't matter what we do; China is so much bigger that unless they stop polluting the Earth is f-ed anyway." While that is absolutely true, it also absolutely misses the point. One thing that should be abundantly clear about the Chinese over the last 20 years is their desire and ability to copy economic policies and industries that work. They are racing us to the top, not to the bottom (to give credit, that's another Friedman line). Most of us are disgusted by the level of pollution in major Chinese cities, and we don't understand why they aren't more serious about the problem. But even though they are well aware of it, they are somewhat powerless to attack it right now. All the myriad of social, health, and environmental problems are kept somewhat at bay right now by China's continued GDP growth. Every year, as long as the Chinese people continue to see their per capita GDP increase, they will continue to stomach the rest of their problems. It's like you're being chased by a bear and you have no choice but to outrun it even if you see that 200 yards ahead you're going to go straight off a cliff. That's why it's so important for us to lead the way with green technology. Once we demonstrate that it is efficient and cost-effective China and the rest of the world will be quick to adopt it. That would give us the ability to create jobs here, turn our economy around, restore our image abroad, and combat climate change. It's not just win-win; it's win-win-win-win.
John,
I hope you don't mind me posting this, but I think it's a good cause. And I know that even though we all have our differences regarding where our troops should be this Christmas, each of us is grateful for the sacrifices given in the name of Freedom.
The VALOUR-IT project provides laptops and other IT related support to disabled veterans. The fundraiser is running until Thanksgiving.
http://soldiersangels.org/index.php?page=fundraiser
Thanks!
Post a Comment