Which is most vital to improving our economy? Ban Outsourcing Promote Outsourcing More Government Control Less Goverment Control Other
Hi dude! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Ya finally posted! If I may, I will choose multiple choices. And they are: Less Government Control Other "Other" being "put Kerry in office". (Oh, and Tip for the Noob, it is possible to add a poll to yer thread when ya make one. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! If ya need help with that, PM me or ask me at school.)
trade more and get less people working in the service sector ond governement. if the guys in govt stopped paying themselves off taxes ond started working themselves then the economy gets stronger
Can you explain to me what "outsourcing" is? Sorry... I am not that well educated in some areas. (I am 15 - that should explain enough!)
Lets say you run a sports supply company and you need soccer balls. You have these made somewhere in America and it costs you, hypothetically speaking, 10 cents a ball. Then you figure out you could have them manufactured in Mexico for 1 cent a ball and then pay another cent to ship them back here. You make so much profit you can drop prices slightly to draw business and make an even bigger profit. Somebody else sees you selling balls for less than they can sell them for and still make a profit. Thus they are forced to do the same thing to stay in business. Soon no soccer balls are made in the US and Mexico has a whole lot of low wage jobs. That is basically what outsourcing is, for good or ill.
Well I completely agree that if we were to trade me we'd be better off but I completely disagree with your nothing that we need to get less people working in the service sector. We need to let the market evolve our workforce as it has done and watch it naturally push more people into the service sector. Granted some service jobs are being outsourced, but that's where we're also seing our greatest job growth. It's just a natural shift for a post-industrial nation. -Will
This is a tough one, i'd say other and suggest that educating the public that economic change although with a short term cost, comes with great long term advantages. With that in mind we should neither ban, nor promote outsourcing - just let the market decide how much outsourcing occurs. We need less government control, but there are some areas where I feel we need more, so I can't take one over the other as a vital area to improve our economy. Great question! -Will
hey, I agree with Will in that it should be decided by the market inregards to the outsourcing. As a side note inregards to outsourcing - You're probably aware that more and more businesses for last decade outsource their support staff such as accounting, IT, security etc... Because it is cheaper to out source these people, as apose to keeping them as perminant staff. An area of considerable growth for outsourcing has come from R&D. Before companies such IBM - would do everything internally - from their accounts, inventing/innovating new technology, writing software, HR etc... How ever with the opening of the global markets, and great cost cutting potential - they have started to segment certain parts of their business - to other businesses. What I really agree with Will on, is that there should be greater education - inregards to economics. If I had it my way, I would make it mendatory like science, maths and english. Less or more Government control? A combination of both is good - sounds like a paradox, how ever - allow me to explain. I believe the Government should get in some of the best economic analysts it can - and determine where they can guide America (the same goes for any other Government with their economy) for long term growth and prosperity. Quite obviously it will be very hard for America to compete in the Manufacturing sector - so it may seem that they have to create an elite population that can provide services for the world - or maybe specialize in R&D... and at the same time - try and ensure the money made - flows back to their economy. (i feel like writing a whole heap on deflation - but i think it's too early in the morning for that) That will obviously entail greater Gov. control... The other side of coin - is to get rid of or cut down on non-essential services, and maybe try and give incentives for the private sector to take over. I need sleep so I won't go on to much more (as great as it may be to find out there's economic section on this forum). So basically, the base for a good recovery - is good microeconomic reform, in sectors that look strong in the long term, aswell as good economic education. Good Night/day, - Shifty Russian
"other" Localize economies. Enforce/create new monopolies laws. Promote "green" industry. Pay the worker a fair wage. Basically, we need to stop focussing on profits and start focussing on ethics as the center of the economy. Good ethics = long term sustainability/profits. Bad ethics = huge short term profits but destroying everything human. Outsourcing is just the tip of the iceburg. The entire system we have is based upon a market which really doesn't exist in any objective sense. That has to be changed radically if we want our economy to last even into the near future.
Ban Outsourcing: This option per se simply cannot occur provided the economic goal is of mass production and mass consumption: In order to have mass production, you have to outsource so that mass consumption can undergo; just look at the Japanese economy, she cannot be competitive without outsourcing. This is precisely the reason German car industry, for instance, is losing its global competitiveness over the Japense due to her lack of strategic outsourcing. Now, Toyota's European sales - thanks to outsourcing - has achieved the record high in Western Euro. Promote Outsourcing: This option per se cannot exist in our global market economy today. The strength of Japanese economy, for instance, rests in her careful strategic balancing act between the degree of outsouricng and its strategic control/regulations. Mechanically less sophisticated goods, such as lower class home electronics, can be produced by exploiting the third wealth nations, such as south east Asia, via outsourcing the local economy. But for the sake of preserving her own internal economy, she has to be in control of the product cycle: If the thrid wealth nations are capable of producing high grade goods such as Lexus, Sony SE, etc, Japan can no longer determine the product cycle, as a result, she will sooner or later lose its economic competitiveness. This, to some extent has happened when Sharp (a pionieer of LCD screen) outsourced its manufacturing jobs to S. Korea: Thanks to over-outsourcing, Samsung, a south korean company, is now able to produce as good LCD screens as does sharp. In turn, however, Sharp is again temporary banning outsourcing its technology/jobs to overseas (i.e., 'black-box strategy') in order to control/determine the product cycle. Once you are in control of product cycle, you can determine the market. More/Less Government Control: 'More' or 'Less' government contol is reative under any circumstance in the global economy. Seemingly 'less' controled economy, such as the one in the States, is in fact highly controled internally by the governemnt (e.g., interest rate) while seemingly 'more' controled economy, such as Germany of Japan, is in fact less controled by the government (the German or Japanese government doesn't determine how many cars they can export, on the contrary, the foreign countries who import those cars determine the decision). My answer therefore is 'other': Generally, there are two dominant economic models: a) Anglo-saxon model whose economy is sustained by import of goods and export of service. b) German-Japaese model whose economy is supported by both export and import of goods - i.e., commodity trading. (though the amount of export is significantly more than that of import) Many economists had thought that the Anglo-Saxon model would be the standard of all economic models universally, but recently, it seems that the German-Japanese model is gaining its power due partly to ecological concerns: Anglo-saxon model simply comsumes too much without reserving/saving energy, capital and resource (just look at the trade deficit, debt and low saving, and high pollution rate - they explain which direction Anglo-Saxon economy is heading towards. In addition, we have realised that mere exploiting thrid wealth nations no longer economically efficient in terms of regional long term strategic economic solidarity/staility. The third wealth nations get exploited due to their cheap capitals (i.e., cheap land, cheap humans, cheap tax, etc). But at the same time, developed nations who are exploiting the third wealth nations now need trade partners other than the ones already established. That is, as much as Germany or Japan needs third wealth nations to exploit, she also needs new economic partners who can trade goods with a relative competence. In order to trade goods, both parties' currency has to be somewhat equal in value. Accordingly, in order to have the equal monetary value, both parties have to have equally competitive economy: In order for Germany or Japan to succeed in the future, she has to establish trade partners who are currently in the status of the third wealth nation such as, respectively, Russia and China/Korea. That is, it is in the developed nations' best interest to encourage the relative internal economic success in those third wealth nations. This behaviour can be observed even in the US economy with her massive investment in China, and the EU/Japan's massive investment to Eastern Euro and Russia. Sooner or later, Russia, China/Korea will be, and should be, equally competitive economically as much as the developed nations. Though, the decisive difference between the US investemnt and that of the EU/Japan is that the former does it with mere outsourcing the local economy while the latter does it with careful balancing act between what to outsource and what not to outsource. This leads to me a conclusion that, the mere exploitation of the Anglo-Saxon economic style - as seen in the US - won't last too long. Sooner or later, the US economy will have a major recission. I would strongly adivse to any US based mutual fund holders to get out before it's too late. Instead, buy some foriegn utility funds. best,
top mosker: We cannot possibly 'stop focussing on profits and start focussing on ethics' insofar as the maximisation of profit is THE decisive goal of market economy (I cannot think of any other). Instead, we can, however, focus on profit while heeding to ethics. In fact, it is not in the market's best interest to endourse ethics; instead, ethics of any kind is determined by a profitable/efficient market practice. Once a market is established, there be a corresponding ethics - whether 'good' or 'bad'. If it be 'bad', the case is that an economic practice isn't of efficient/profitable one. As you rightly said: best,
Vslayer: Agree, to trade more and have less people working in the service sector generally leads to a realtive economic stability. Though, to have less people working in the goverment might not lead to a strong economy; a laissez-faire economy is probably more desastorous than otherwise. Wkirby: Disagree. Just by observing the Anglo-Saxon economy of the US and UK, the market never 'naturally' evolves for any market has a desicive goal - i.e., maximisation of profit - so any behaviour within the market is determine by this end. Thus, it is not 'natural' shift, but it is 'inevitable' shift that Anglo-Saxon nations are forced to shit for a post-industiral economy since her economy is of consumption rather than of production (as in the German/Japnese economy). The reason why you are seeing the greatest job growth is simply the fact that the service sector alone dominates the US economy. For instance, Ford, the US car company, made more money in the last three quarters via investment (i.e., a fictitious money game) while the actual sales of their cars declinced. A notion of post-industrial era probably won't come to fruition. The US economy, however, is shifting towards that way at the expense of massive negative finanical consequences. As I vindicated in the previous post, sooner or later the US economy will collapse.
Wkirby: Agree. Whether that be economic change or any change for the better, education is the key for everything. Yes, general education for the public should be regulated/controled by the government to a certain extent.
