On Wed, Jul 23, 2003 at 11:27:46PM -0400, John Pedersen wrote:
> >So investment bankers (not companies?) have a moral obligation not to
> > fund projects which ship jobs overseas? Even though they'll make
> >scads of money on them?
> >
> >I'm sorry, I really don't see this. Investment bankers, like everyone
> > else in business, are driven by profit. Unless you're talking about
> >heroin manufacturing or kiddie porn, I'm not sure what morality has
> >to do with it. I'm not sure how it's "selling out the country".
> >Selling the Chinese satellite and missile guidance technology is
> >selling out the country.
>
> An interesting point. Your implication is that making a profit, legally,
> cannot be immoral.
>
> I think there IS a line you can cross, where legal pursuit of profit is
> immoral. The location of the line may be subjective, but it exists. If
> I said that somebody produced a product, which they KNEW to be
> junk that would self destruct within ten minutes of use, and sold one
> to everybody in the land, we might agree that this is rather despicable,
> but doesn't cross the line of immorality.
>
> But what if the person knowingly sold everybody in America something
> that would give them zero benefit, and would destroy their life savings.
> But it's legal. Isn't there any point at which it becomes immoral? I
> suggest
> that if you knowingly sell something that does harm, you may be crossing
> the line. Even if it's legal.
>
Remember I mentioned heroin and kiddy porn....
But I think the line you're talking about is _highly_ subjective. One
could say that the guy who came up with the Pet Rock was doing exactly
what you suggest. Evil? You might say so, and I would disagree. It
doesn't actually hurt people, and if people want to spend money on it,
let 'em.
Here might be a better example: tobacco companies. The product is
addictive and tends to sicken people. It has very little redeeming
value, other than to feed its own addiction. Evil? A lot of people think
so. I tend to disagree. I personally think the evils of tobacco are
overhyped by social do-gooders. Who's right?
How about casinos? There's a product that's strictly a transfer of money
from gambler to casino. Evil? People seem to get a lot of pleasure out
of it.
How about breweries and distilleries? I can enumerate the evils of
alcohol all day. I've got alcoholics all through my family. Look at the
auto accidents alone caused by alcohol. Evil? I don't think so. I have
an occasional margarita, and am phobic about driving after having even
one drink.
Like I said, very subjective. And I'm not inclined to believe that
offshoring jobs (remember that one?) is in the same league as all these
things.
> Each of us has to decide for themselves, but I do think that people who
> profit, legally, and KNOWINGLY do great harm to the entire nation, are
> somewhat evil.
I'm assuming you've misspoken here-- "people who profit, legally, and
KNOWINGLY do great harm...." If you didn't misspeak, then there is the
crux of the matter-- profit is evil, the more of it the more evil.
> Of course, since you don't agree that any great harm
> has been done, it might be a moot point to you.
>
> You mentioned that selling missile technology to the Chinese qualified,
> to you, as "selling out the country".
>
> Well consider where the Wall Street bankers have placed us:
>
> 1. Right now the Chinese are HUGE supporters of the US dollar. It
> suits them, for now, to maintain the currency relationship. Lucky for us.
>
This is temporary, yes. But bad? And how is it that Wall Street bankers
are the reason for this? What about the companies trading with them?
> 2. Remember the west coast dock strike? After a few days (9 or so?), the
> president ordered them back to work, because it was becoming
> a NATIONAL SECURITY problem. After about a week without Chinese
> imported goods, it was a threat to "national security".
>
You're making a conspiratorial connection here. I can see two reasons
for it to be a national security problem: 1) nobody minding the docks,
ergo Mohammed can just roll his nuke container up to the docks. 2)
nearly anything can be rolled under the heading of "national security"
so the president can do something about it. Oh well. The Chinese
connection is also reasonable; we get a whole crapload of goods from
them. Having ships sitting out there unable to dock creates a vast array
of problems. But it sounds like you're intimating that we're in bed with
those red commie bastards. Somehow I don't see how this rises to that
level. And are you saying the Wall Street bankers caused this?
> Don't those two points make you feel vulnerable? Hmmmmm, I would
> say that someone who knowingly created that situation was in the
> same league as someone who sold them missile technology, no? There
> is more than one way to conquer a country.
>
I find the dock workers more culpable in the dock strike than anyone
else. In fact, I've wondered if it wasn't a ploy created by the
Democrats to embarrass the president. (I know, paranoid.) Or are you
talking about the broader issue of US vulnerability? If so, I still
don't see the banker connection as the answer to all of it.
<snip>
> >And actually, those factories did come back. It used to be that
> >Japanese/Korean cars were made overseas. Now it's become economically
> > more feasible to locate their factories an the American south. Of
> >course, that's not true of all oriental commodities. Just an example
> >of where it _can_ happen.
>
> Unless we look at specific cases, I can't say for sure, but I strongly
> suspect
> that there are two factors at play.
>
> 1. The government has installed "content requirements", forcing some
> manufacuring to be brought back onshore. It has the same net
> effect as tarrifs, which I would also favor (and I used to be the world's
> biggest free-trader; slept with Milton Friedman's book under my pillow
> and everything!)
I'd disagree here. I'm still in the free trade camp.
>
> and
>
> 2. Because the local economies were in such desperate shape, the
> various levels of government are offering such huge tax concessions
> to the Koreans, Japanese, car companies. So it's kind of like using our
> own money to buy the appearance of economic health. (BTW, what
> usually happens is that after the tax holiday period ends (five years,
> or whatever), the factory will be sitting idle again)
But even if all the "profits" disappear overseas, these factories still
create employment here, and thus energize their local economies. These
local governments wouldn't give tax incentives unless they thought they
could make it up in other government income created by the existence of
the new factory. As far as them being idle after the tax holiday, you
could be right. I haven't a clue. But if so, it's just more of the
short-term thinking I mentioned earlier. Immoral? No. Unwise? Probably.
Paul
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Fri Aug 01 2014 - 20:26:34 EDT