What's the answer to this economic dilema?

[Speck Tater]

1. Quality goods
2. Low Prices
3. More jobs for Americans

Pick any two.

You can have high quality and low prices, but only if you sacrifice American jobs.
You can have high quality and more American jobs, but only if you are willing to pay high prices.
You can have low prices and more American jobs, but only if you are willing to settle for low quality.

What's the answer to this dilema?

[Lars39]

1. You forgot Golden Parachutes in that equation.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

19. I support lower priced and higher quality corporate executives

What we need is an H1-B visa program for CEOs and corporate directors. Let's bring in some Indian and Chinese who work very hard for a lot less money. Do we really want to pay Ken Lay salaries for Ken Lay quality?

[AP]

2. Progressive taxation, increasing options and opportunities for middle/

working class, and investements in infrastructure and education which will pay off down the road.

[kayell]

3. High quality, american jobs

and a lot less waste on plastic crap no one needs. Combine that with a more equitable division of the economic pie, and we're set as far as I'm concerned.

I remember reading somewhere that the entire worlds population could live at the level that the average Western European lived at during the 70's without causing further degradation to the environment. (wish I could find that reference quickly) I could handle that.

[junker]

4. the answer is all three....

all we have to do is to dump the dollar. When America was under gold standard for money (pre 1913) we had 5 + per cent growth, no boom/bust cycles, high quality, steady low prices and plenty of jobs/work.

Every time (four so far counting the dollar) that americans experiment with paper money (aka fiat currency aka dollar) we get screwed and it collapses. As does/has every other paper money experiment in history with most collapsing in less than 72 years and some at the nice mean point of 54 years. The dollar in existance since 1913 when some private bankers got together and blackmailed congress and pres wilson into the farce of the paper currency (yet again), has lasted longer than most currencies, but even now is on its death bed. Having been bled of 99.99 per cent of its initial value through inflation (i.e. the creation of more paper money), the american buck is now worth less than one cent of its original value. Plus ALL the debt of the world rests on the dollar. Sad to say, that things for the US Of A, and the rest of planet earth will not improve substantially until the soon-to-be-here dollar melt down.
Sad, due to what we have to survive to come out the other side. Remember what happened to Argentina, then magnify that a few thousand times and smear it all over the globe and you have an idea of one-tenth of the problems coming. And by the way, the first trigger to the collapse of the dollar has already happened, e.g. the mutual fund crisis..

go to this site and just look to the number of articles on the mutfun scandal developing and where they all, AND warren Buffet say we will end up in pretty short term (say....mar 04)

here is site

http://www.depression2.tv/week/index.html

[cosmicaug]

10. Boom and Bust

No boom and bust cycles before 1913? I do not believe boom and bust in the U.S.A. is some odd peculiarity of 1920-1933 and I don't believe you. You sound like those people who say that everything in the U.S.A. started going downhill once God was taken out of the schools.

See for instance:

For nearly half a century, J. Pierpont Morgan was the de facto central bank of the United States (the nation lacking any such institution after Andrew Jackson in 1832 vetoed a charter renewal for the Bank of the United States). Lacking what amounted to a governmental money supply regulator, the dramatic boom-and-bust cycles that battered the economy roughly every decade after the Civil War were often devastating. Twice, once under Grover Cleveland and again during Theodore Roosevelt’s administration, Morgan guaranteed the financial solvency of the nation.

From http://www.policyreview.org/feb00/West.html

[denverbill]

5. B is the option we've used for our entire national history.

Protectionist tariffs were the Founding Fathers tax of choice.

American workers were the highest paid in the world from the 1940's through the 90's. Clinton threw that out the door by signing NAFTA.

NAFTA only works if it guarantees workers in all countries the same benefits they receive in the US. Otherwise, it's a rush to the bottom to find the shittiest labor laws. Right now, the rush is on to China (WTO, not NAFTA) where post-communist workers not only cannot unionize but can't even dissent politically.

Walmart heaven.

[ieoeja]

9. And yet, they rebelled (in part) against tariffs.

The death of King George II coincided with the winding down of what we in the US call the French-And-Indian War. This presented a new, much more conservative Privy Council with the opportunity to implement strict enforcement of outdated laws to bring the colonists closer to England without the fear of French assistance to the colonists -- or, in other words, King George III meet President George II. For instance, following the war the number of British soldiers stationed in North America was INCREASED and stationed in the same forts the French previously used to threaten the British colonists while the Rangers, the only effective counter-measure militarily against the Native American population, were completely disbanded.

Among the many stupid laws they chose to enforce strictly was the tariff against foreign import of sugar and molasses. As substantial producers of rum, the British sugar producing colonies had little sugar left over which made British sugar expensive. In contrast, French sugar was cheap as their colonies were not allowed to produce rum in a French effort to protect their Bourbon (I think) industry. As a result the North American colonies, with little domestic sugar themselves found themselves cut off from a raw supply their economies had come to expect.

Protectionism just may be the leading cause of war. People may fight for God and Country, but kings and politicians start those wars for power and money (see our embargo of Japan leading to WW-II).

[HereSince1628]

12. Agreed...the free trade agreements are creating that

sucking sound Ross Perot talked about.

I don't think we've had a positive trade balance with Mexico since NAFTA was implemented.

[HereSince1628]

6. Interesting that 1 and 2 have adjectives and 3 doesn't

I wonder if this is the way we are beginning to think.

Forgetting that ANY job is not the same as a job that provides a living wage and even modest health benefits.

I would note that the elements you pose for combination don't seem to capture sufficient elements to construct a functional economic model.

[haele]

7. Best two out of three

If you have high quality - and majority of Americans have jobs with wages to be able to spend only half to perhaps at most 2/3rds their wages on basic subsistance - as was the case more often than not when I was growing up - than you don't need costs to be "low" to survive.

Look at it this way. High quality, which in my mind includes engineering efficiency into items, regulating and/or standardizing production, transportation, manufacturing and service of an item, solves at least two major consumer cost issues - not having to replace, buy multiples of, or spending a lot of money maintaining items, such as an appliance, housing, a vehicle, clothes, etc...and having in general healthier, less stressed, and safer families due to a healtier, safer environment.
Costs to the average consumer, even a lower-income consumer are actually less in the long run when these quality issues are addressed.

If the majority of Americans had a good wage and benefits, they can afford to make the investment in purchasing quality products, which in turn, get passed on to the producers and manufacturing sector...

Trickle up, rather than trickle down.

Hmmm. Sounds a lot better for the average worker. Sure, costs may go up, but if quality and wages can keep track with costs, I know I'd be more likely to save up to make the initial investment for a higher priced item I can use for a couple years rather than pay half price for a similar item that will break down every six months...

Haele

[Redleg]

8. Tax cuts for the wealthy!

Don't they always improve the economy? Sorry, I just feel damm sarcastic today.

[HereSince1628]

11. I think we needed regulation to stem the flight of capital

Our jobs aren't going off-shore because foreign countries developed their own industries...they have a lot of industry because American capital emigrated.

A lot of the damage is already done...but my suggestion is to develop policies that reduce the emigration of capital.

Nationalize health care...that externalizes a cost for business it would also reduce the peak costs of medical care per family just as insurance does, but maybe without the cut for the profit made by insurance companies.

Provide tax breaks for capital that is invested in the US. Perhaps taking the income tax off corporate dividends earned on "American" investments, and placing a surcharge on corporate/investment income from overseas. True this doesn't help with the problem represented production overseas.

Charge tariffs on goods that are produced in a manner that doesn't meet American labor and environmental standards. True these are trade barriers, but they are also a protection for producer nations from the cruelty of frontier capitalism. Free-reign capitalists don't like that, but why should we adopt their amoral standards?

If we are forced to reduce our incomes and jetison attributes of our standard of living we ought to try to create ways to help Americans reduce their cost of living, that is, create alternatives that move us into line with competing nations and enable us to divest some of their most expensive consumption...in a fantasy world something like building public transit, enabling people to live with one rather than two+ vehicles per family and all the associated expenses...purchase (financing), operation, maintenance, insurance etc. That could potentially save hundreds of dollars per month for families.

But, I know I'm just dreaming, writing to myself....

[Don_G]

15. Make It Unprofitable To Export Our Capital

And set some controls over the Financial markets with stiff prison sentenaces similar to the ones handed out to drug offenders now.

[Fall_No_Further]

13. Take all three.

With the constant progress of technology, and the constantly refined practices of business, sharpened by competition in a market that allows for it, why can't you have all three? Why do any 2 necessarily preclude the 3rd? Many people would disagree with the notion that any two of the three are jointly exclusive of the third option.

[newyawker99]

16. Hi Fall_No_Further!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[Fall_No_Further]

17. Thanks!

It's pretty cool around here. I like it.

[RichM]

18. Some problems with this.

First, one of the "constantly refined practices of business" is precisely the outsourcing of manufacturing that seeks to exploit cheap labor overseas. This results in fewer jobs for Americans.

Second, "competition" often does not exist. Many markets are dominated by monopolies or oligopolies. There is no real downward pressure on prices in such situations. Rather, there is a kind of tacit collusion among the few dominant producers, making price-cutting a rarity.

Third, monopoly/oligopoly strategy includes planned obsolescence. Things are not made to last. They are made to wear out, so that they need to be replaced. Thus, there is no long-term upward pressure on quality.

Fourth, you say that "Many people would disagree with the notion that any two of the three ..." -- So what? The fact that many people would disagree with something doesn't make it true or not true. In particular, in the US, most people are socialized to be brainwashed & ignorant. Thus, many Americans not agreeing with a notion is hardly an argument against that notion's validity. (For example, "many people" think Bush was fairly elected, and is a strong leader..., etc)

[Fall_No_Further]

21. Can these problems be worked out?

Outsourcing: Could this have anything to do with our current tax structure, which, it is commonly argued, is hostile to many businesses? And what about job growth in new sectors? Or, to look into a problem which a local paper has just finished an 8-part investigation on, what about the numerous jobs currently held by illegal immigrants? In the local area alone, there are something like 25000--yes, I do mean 25000--illegal immigrants in the area. Could stricter controls there help Americans with employment?

How can a monopoly exist without government intervention? It is highly unlikely that a monopoly ever could form without government intervention, according to most free-market economists, the very ones that argue for privitization; how would you argue against that contention?

Monopolistic strategies don't matter, if in a free market system, they cannot arise, practically speaking. The strategy of a non-existent entity--and free-market advocates say a monopoly wouldn't exist unless the government created it, which defeats the point of privitization--is an irrelevent strategy.

I was just pointing out, with the "many people..." comment that the assertion that we can only accept 2 out of the 3 conditions presented was not backed up with any factual evidence or logical reasoning; it was simply asserted. I'm not saying it's incorrect, simply that I would like an explanation for why that assertion was made.

Thoughts? How to layeth down the smack upon this argument?

[onebigbadwulf]

14. 2 words

Massive Tarrifs

[sweetheart]

20. unholy trinity... but how about "justice"

1. unfettered globalization
2. fair regulation
3. national sovereignty

You can have properly regulated globalization at the cost of sovereignty.
You can have proper regulation and sovereignty, at the cost of globalization.
You can have globalization and sovereignty at the cost of regulation.

These trinity problems are lovely conundrums.

The simple answer is that i intend "justice" and whatever form justice takes, then i will adapt.