TheAgitator.com
Globalphobia in the Streets
Saturday, April 24th, 2004I attended today’s IMF/World Bank protest in DC. Basically, I didn’t have any pressing engagements and it was a really nice day to be outside.
The highlight of my afternoon had to be my discussion with a socialist who noticed my new “Enjoy Capitalism” t-shirt courtesy of the fine folks at Bureaucrash. I won’t go into detail, but libertarian minded readers who have had the same opportunity will know pretty much how it went.
Anyway, I posted a webpage of my day here. Enjoy.
“I thanked them for making sure things didn’t get out of hand… does that make me a tool of the man?”
Yep, pretty much. The bureaucrash people look like tools too. And, that’s coming from someone who doesn’t have any use for “peace” protesters. As much as “peace” protesters make me uncomfortable, if I were in a group with bureaucrash I’d feel like I had joined a cult or like I was at least on the wrong side. That’s even with me probably agreeing with many of their points (except the incorrect story in Spanish currently on their front page about Maria Suarez).
Lord knows I’m not one to talk, but your photog and compression skills could use a bit of work too.
I totally got your Chris Walken/SNL allusion.
By the way, would you close that freaking hyperlink (mmm… old school lingo) it’s making all your damned text blue, which almost matches the background.
Mr. Balko:
I want to express my appreciation for your article today on outsourcing. It brought home to me the answers to two questions concerning the mysteries of life that had plagued me, namely (1) what the hell is macroeconomics? and (2) what does God do all day long to while away the weary hours?
With respect to the first, I now know that macroeconomics is that aerie from which the philosopher may contemplate the engine of business from such a distance that there is no bothersome intrusion of one John R. Salisbury, age 53, father of 3 children in college, displaced from his job with no prospects, and facing foreclosure on his mortgage. No Mary D. Williams, age 49, with a mother in a nursing home, will ever wave her pink slip within these cloistered walls.
From the lofty heights of macroeconomics, individuals may be regarded - or, more accurately - disregarded as mere specks on the lens. Or, viewed in an indistinguishable aggregation like the drops of water comprising a wave or the electrons forming an electrical current, displacing the needle of the meter only in their trillions.
As to the second question, from the apparent unconcern for the individual which He shares with you, I think it is obvious that God must, like you, be a macroeconomic theorist. I daresay His perch is even higher than yours, and I wonder whether you in your turn are merely a speck on His lens?
Thanks again. You’re a real peach.
Brian Taylor
Marysville, WA
So I suppose your solution to the evils of macroeconomics is to look only at the trees and not the forest? Then what? Implement policies that effect everyone, like tariffs and stopping free trade? I’m sorry, but venturing there would be to venture in to the macroeconomic realm.
And that’s evil, remember?
Brian — you assume that your examples have some sort of right to the same job from the start to the finish of their careers.
As someone who has gone through seven employers in 20 years, including two layoffs, while putting two kids through college, let me tell you — not only do none of us have a right to a job:
> Those of us who assume that they have such a right, instead of thinking like businessmen themselves, and preparing both financially and professionally for changes in their careers — and also evaluating the security of any new position before they take it — are setting themselves up for a shock.
> Any attempt to impose such a “right” on the free-enterprise system will impair the efficient and effective operation of our economy, which could increase unemployment, or even degenerate to situation of “they pretend to pay, we pretend to work”.
> We can do a lot to protect ourselves, without making either business or government carry the burden. Most of us could mind our personal finances better, to be prepared for the pink slip … and/or take steps to maximize our skill set, increasing the value of our services to a present or future employer.
Radley — looks like something I might enjoy … sort of the full-contact version of commenting here, except that the reasoning capabilities of the opposition during such an event are significantly less than what we get here.
We don’t get a lot of this action down in Dallas — guess they figure the vast majority of us here wouldn’t listen (and they’d be right).
Brian -
Thanks for that photo array and some funny commentary. I laughed out loud with “No protest would be complete without bad folk music.”
I was in one of those pictures, too bad we couldn’t meet up. No not really, I wasn’t there. I was busy putting petrochemical based fertilizers on my lawn and then I went to Home Depot to buy some endagered wood species cut in nice pieces. After that I went to a libertarian rock concert in the park.
Brian K — excuse me for misidentifying you as Radley, above.
And “Brian” im my post above is Mr. Taylor, not you.
Rich: How did we move from the observation that macroeconomics is a nifty way to theorize without concerning yourself about individual consequences of your theory, to talking about a job as a “right”?
It’s the logical error known as “straw man” to mischaracterize someone’s post in some silly way and then attack the mischaracterization.
It is perhaps a consequence of our polarizing current political discourse (or is it our lousy educational system?) that we seem to want to describe our world in false dichotomies. If I don’t believe in A, then I must be for Z, because A and Z is all there is…no B, no C, no D, no E nor any other letter in between.
If economics has been described as the “dismal science”, you will find the most ardent adherents of that definition among the masses of individuals who are being trampled by the “blessings” of the grand-sweep-of-trade theories.
Where is Dickens when you need him?
Dear “Great_1oooorb” (did I get that right?):
Again the dichotomy. Life is viewed in fixed-focus and you can look at the forest or the trees, but never both.
I might point out that forests do not burn - trees burn - but let’s leave this impoverished framework as it doesn’t really help us think.
If you know when something has been proven and when it has not, you will recognize the “grand-sweep-of-trade” assertions as just that and nothing more, and you will also recognize that even from their lofty vista they tend to miss (we will not say “ignore”) even certain macroeconomic consequences which a more complete (we will not say “honest”) macroeconomic argument should take into account….things such as the net outflow of currency, the uneven trade policies of nations which inhibit the flow of the “blessings” they speak of so gushingly, and the fact that the real multiplier of lost income in this country impacts domestically, not internationally (less money, you buy more cheap imported products, etc.)
When my job went to India - with exactly 10 days notice - here are the people in my community who were negatively impacted:
1. My veterinarian - had to put off the annual physicals of my three dogs.
2. My auto mechanic - I have a car that went blooey and it sits in my driveway.
3. My community college - my son had to cut back his class load and take a part-time job.
4. My butcher - I canceled my annual order for a side of beef.
5. My lawn guy - I have lots of time to mow now.
6. My car wash - ditto, time to wash the car.
7. The barrista at the espresso stand where I bought a latte each morning on the way to work.
8. My grocer…my barber…my local theater…
I wonder how long I should go on before you quite exquisitely get the point?
Brian Taylor:
You are trying to make a point of some sort - very eloquently, I might add. But, I’m not clear what that point is. Are you saying that Macro-economics is bad because it doesn’t take into account the individual?
“Job as a right”.
I’ve seen this characterization of the position of those who critique the rush to outsourcing a number of times now, but, interestingly, I have never seen or heard this position actually articulated by anyone. Nor do I accept the idea that it is implied, any more than tariffs imply job-as-a-right.
You can only move from the objections to outsourcing that I have seen to “a job is a right” if you really, really need to raise a straw man.
Or, perhaps someone would provide me with a reference to a “job as a right” argument made by someone? No? Well, let’s pretend someone said this just for the sake of discussion. After all, fantasizing shouldn’t be the exclusive domain of the pro-outsourcing crowd, eh?
Somewhere, between noticing that Sue Ellen was filling out her sweater in a new and mysterious way and smoking with my homies behind the gymnasium, some lousy good-for-nothing teacher managed to cram this phrase into my fevered adolescent brain: “…life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”
It’s understandable if, given what was competing for my attention at the time, I misremembered this. It must have been “…life, liberty and the pursuit of macroeconomic happiness”, surely. Or, “…life, liberty and the macroeconomic pursuit of mass happiness”, perhaps?
How about “….the pursuit of happiness which can only be truly found in the asceticism of poverty”? Well, let me invite you to join me in my glee.
Over the years since our founding, not a few “blessings” which were not specifically enumerated in the original Bill of Rights have been the subject of the question: Is this a right implied by the Constitution? To many of these, we seem to have answered a resounding “YES!”. If I am in a wheelchair, it is my RIGHT to have access to public buildings and ramps built into curbs at street corners. If I am an alcoholic, it is my RIGHT to receive treatment through my employer, as I am disabled. If I speak another language and go into a hospital, it is my RIGHT to have a translator (yes - this is my field, so you can indeed believe that every little country hospital has to have access to translators - they use AT&T translation services, for instance).
If I go into a hospital for an emergency or in labor with the wrong insurance, it is my RIGHT to be treated there (EMTALA).
If I am in the Reserves, it is my RIGHT not to have my job taken away from me while I am on active duty.
The list is really quite long, folks
Can anyone actually make the argument that a job should not be a right, were I to suggest that it may be one of the most fundamental rights implied by the “pursuit of happiness” clause?
Now, let me head off any rush to misunderstanding or mischaracterization of the “job as a right” concept as “socialism”. A “right” is optional to the grantee. Think about that, and you’ll see the distinction.
Mr. Farley:
I am making the point that macroeconomic theory, in the abstract, is the luxury of the employed, the indifferent or those who exhaust their intellect so early in their contemplations that they cannot seem to carry their theories out to their logical conclusions.
Brian Taylor,
What policy actions would you like to see? How do we make sure these actions don’t make the economy worse and cause more job losses?
You ask me to spit into the face of a mighty wind. Only Thursday, MIT scientists announced that there is no force in the universe greater than American greed….they’re trying to make a bomb out of it.
But if I must take up the herculean torch, first convince me that the pro-outsourcing arguments are something more than a reprise of the failed arguments which resulted in the signing of NAFTA. We’re standing here tapping our foot waiting for the gush of those blessings - and so are the Mexican towns where American factories now stand idle, and all those poor Mexican workers who were supposed to become the big consumers of American goods. NAFTA has benefited about 17 wealthy Mexicans so far and we’re waiting for it all to trickle down. Meanwhile, piano-crate housing remains in short supply.
Second, solve the real and hidden danger of outsourcing - namely the flow of intelligence out of the country which must accompany every outsourced information job. An outsourced help desk must know all about your product. An outsourced medical transcription company receives a constant stream of private medical information. An outsourced credit agency, ditto regarding credit information.
Third, explain to me why the pipeline from this economic gusher seems to be routed right around the hapless residents of “Displacedville”. Why does the macroeconomic theory fall short of making sure that while the fat cats gorge themselves, the necessary benefits first - FIRST - flow to every single displaced person, and not because it is altruistic (we will not say “moral”) to do this BUT NECESSARY TO THEIR OWN MACROECOMIC ARGUMENT.
Brian,
You have made in illogical argument very eloquently.
“Job As A Right”
- If you use “…the persuit of happiness” ‘clause’ to justify any right you would fall flat. I can persue anything I believe fits in the realm of contributing to my happiness. But at the end of the day, I still won’t be any closer to a conjugal roundesvous with Jennifer Lopez. Natch.
“Your Butcher, Your Baker, Your Candlestick Maker”
- There is no doubt that the loss of your job will have a blip of an impact on your community. The greater the loss, the greater the impact. However, I’m not sure that your community is the pulse of the national economy at large and is typical of anything other than a community with a homogenous economy.
“argumentum ad misericordiam”
- While everyone feels sorry for John D Salibury and Mary Williams, I fail to see why it is in the nations interest to protect their jobs at the expense of others. Nobody every said capitalism is pretty. Many have charachterized it as “creative destruction”.
Brian, you have done a good job of blowing a lot of wind at macroeconomics and outsourcing\global capitalism, but what credible alternative are you suggesting? How are companies to stay competitive if they can’t cut costs somewhere?
Curious George
I’ll notify the producers of “West Wing” of your viewership, Mr. Bush - I remember the episode in which “creative destruction” was the argument made, interestingly, by the left side of the aisle. And I hope you’ll forgive me if I decline to drink from any well you first poison by your “wind” comments or by extending my comments to an obviously ridiculous extreme and then banging on that.
If you have a supported argument to make, by all means make it. So far, you haven’t managed it by a mile.
“Creative destruction”….
…one of those unexamined “truths” (euphemisms, really) that floats around, like “free trade”. Some - and it’s not for me to say that they’re wrong - might suspect that those who are engaged in the destruction in their own selfish economic interests might have hung the word “creative” in front of the reality in an effort to put lipstick on the pig.
What they imply, of course, is, first, that the term describes an imperative, or inevitable, sine qua non. You either MUST “destroy” in order to “create”, or you CANNOT have the “creativity” without the “destruction”.
That neither of these implications is proven requires no further argument or examination.
What is of greater interest is the second level of implication - that once you accept the first level, the destroyers are freed from further responsibility in the matter. They are, after all, not the practitioners of unconscionable and unbounded self-interest, but heck, they’re economic heroes! If I could but see their shining souls, bright with honor, bringing home the golden chalice of profit to our shores, I would no doubt be moved to sell my one remaining pair of shoes in order that I might climb over the bodies of the displaced and walk a hundred miles in my bare feet just to pour my tears of thanks onto their pointy Italian-shod feet.
It might be a good moment to explain to anyone reading my comments that I am a capitalist.
I am not, however, an unabashed proponent of unrestrained capitalism and I do not believe the marketplace is entirely self-regulating. I have lived too long, and I read the newspapers.
There is a cycle, of which there many f examples in the history of marketplace economies, in which the marketplace concentrates money and power in the hands of a few to the point that those same market forces can no longer restrain the activities of these few, who no longer need to rely on the marketplace which gave birth to their power.
Instead, they begin to work from other fulcrums of power (political and legal influence, deceit, abuse, influence) that they have gained by their wealth, and from which they manipulate both the world of the market and the world of government.
I think I will say the next and last thing on this subject in capitals as I wish to violate protocol and yell:
THERE IS NO SOCIAL OR ECONOMIC PHILOSOPHY, HOWEVER PURE IN ITS IDEAL, WHICH THE MIND OF MAN CAN CONCEIVE THAT THE HEART OF MAN CANNOT CORRUPT. Capitalism…socialism, conservatism…liberalism, religionism…humanism - in a democracy, ultimately the only restraint on the potential scope of activity of the adherents of any of these extremes is the activities of the adherents of the other point of view and the those who take positions along the spectrum between the extremes.
This tension of conflicting ideas, and not any special characteristics of capitalism, socialism or any other “-ism”, is the only real boundary on ideas in which the extreme form is, ultimately, corruption of any ideal which at its inception never wondered what it would do if allowed to devour everything in sight.
Brian Taylor: You’ve been asked several times now for something resembling a solution, instead of complaints in flowery language.
I’ll make it easier; I’ll make it a true/false test.
Do you want radical redistribution of wealth? (it’s been implied by many of your comments)
Do you want the state to take over industry so it can gaurantee you a job?
Jeb:
I think I’ve answered the questions, or at least stated what I would need before they can be answered. If that escapes you as being part of the question answering process, I apologize.
How you can get “radical redistribution of wealth” from evern the most cursory reading of what I have stated (and obviously you missed the points where I specifically discussed socialism) is such a mystery to me - but wait, I forgot my own point about people who set up false dichotomies - if you’re not for rampant capitalism, you must be for radical redistribution, eh? Thanks for making my point. I couldn’t have done it nearly as beautifully.
Or, perhaps you regard that it would be “radically redistributing the wealth” for the society which claims that it will benefit enormously from all this outsourcing to make sure that it restored the people it trampled over in the rush to get to these benefits?
You seem to perfectly typify the people who are willing to take a theory only to the point where the profit runs out and the social responsibility begins…the people who think that profit and social conscience couldn’t possibly have a place at the same table.
This isn’t hard, people.
You have companies which claim the economic right - no, the IMPERATIVE - to outsource. Their arguments are weak, but let’s accept them for now, namely:
1. They will positively go bust if they don’t outsource.
2. There isn’t a supply of the skills they need in the U.S.
3. Other countries will retalliate if we restrict outsourcing.
4. Outsourcing is the ONLY answer, and besides, the US stands to gain more jobs than it loses.
There isn’t one of these arguments that can carry a tune, but let’s sing along.
Are you following the bouncing ball?
OK. We solve all these problems and gain all these benefits by unrestricted outsourcing. In the process, according to these crooners, the economy is enormously benefited. The sun is shining. The blue bird of happiness is singing.
With me so far?
In the midst of all this joy, there’s just a little problem - a lot of people displaced, many of whom are in their late 40s and 50s or even 60s. They are the “destroyed” part of this idea we should unquestioningly embrace - “creative destruction”.
Nor should you underestimate the impact of this destruction. Their numbers are growing - and by your philosophy will continue to grow. These were the people who yesterday were paying college bills, paying mortgages, making car payments, going on vacations and paying insurance premiums. They were probably investors in at least some small way. They were propelling their children into the next generation of the economy.
I think the problem is YOURS, as the proponents of this destruction, not MINE, to answer the question of what should be done about these people and the VERY SERIOUS PROBLEM they represent.
What’s more, THE QUESTION ISN’T OPTIONAL - you’re ARE going to pay, one way or another, for the destruction of these lives. These people will stop spending, draw down their savings, sell their investments, in many cases lose their homes, and wind up in your free clinics and emergency rooms.
Shall we retrain them? For what? I was being retrained for an IT position which has now started outsourcing before I graduated from the vocational program.
You’re the proponents. You’re the blithe spirits who think only so far and then quit when the spectre of responsibility rears its ugly head. Go for it, then. Take the ball the last 10 yards where the going is really tough.
You know why you won’t? Because pure capitalism fails at precisely this point and you haven’t got the steam.
If it has dawned on even one of you that the unrestricted-outsourcing theory doesn’t meet the “walkin’-around” test (the point where theory collides with reality), you’re beginning to get it.
You haven’t finished with a theory or a plan or even an idea until you’ve considered and properly addressed the downside, people.
…and while you’re doing that, let your mind really dwell on the notion of unrestricted outsourcing. It won’t take five minutes for you to conclude that it simply isn’t viable - that there have to be SOME limits (I’m quite sure you’ll reach this conclusion before you get to the question of your own job). Now, just what would those be?
Again - it’s your theory. Finish it off.
>Can anyone actually make the argument
>that a job should not be a right,
>were I to suggest that it may be one
>of the most fundamental rights
>implied by the “pursuit of happiness”
>clause?
Brian,
It has come to my attention that you have failed to hire me for a job at any point during my life. Since this is apparently a violation of my rights, I demand compensation for the backwages you owe me.
Whoops, that last one was me, forgot the name.
Post your address, Stormy, and I’ll see that you get what you have coming.
AAAAH. BULLSHIT. YOU FUNNY. You make fun of anti globalist capitalist yet you enjoyed public transportation, Ag Inspected foods, Fed stabilized money, etc. on the same day. HIPP-O-CRITE!
I’ve read every bit of Brian Taylor’s filibustering, yet come away with nothing except that he is very frustrated man, adept at over-the-top writing style, unable to find a new job, pissed that someone fired him from his job, and gave it to someone else IN ANOTHER COUNTRY NO LESS!!
The only problem he seems to take issue with is that this job that was once his, was taken by someone in a different country.
Were he to have been sacked, then have his job given to a fellow american, who could do the same job, but for half the pay, would he still be calling on the government to save his ass?
I’ll bet my job, he would.
Statist prick.
Brian,
I took your arguments as you laid them out.
Actually, the last place I heard the term “creative destruction” was in Harper’s Magazine. Although I think the acting and casting on the West Wing is excellent, I don’t watch it. Politics permeates life enough without spending an hour each week with President Bartlett. “Creative destruction” is an economic theory that has been around (formally) since at least the 1970s. And as far as I’m aware, nobody has ever said that creativity and destruction are always found hand in hand.
“The Four Arguments of the Apocolypse”
1. They will positively go bust if they don’t outsource.
- US Corporations WILL fail to remain competitive in the global maket, with a result of net job loss and stock value.
2. There isn’t a supply of the skills they need in the U.S.
- I haven’t seen this argument made since the tech boom. What I’ve seen is US labor pricing itself out of the market. People making 100-150k don’t like the idea of making 50k.
3. Other countries will retalliate if we restrict outsourcing.
- I haven’t seen this one either. However, other countries WILL outsource, leaving the US at a competitive disadvantage with most other nations save France.
4. Outsourcing is the ONLY answer, and besides, the US stands to gain more jobs than it loses.
- Nobody ever said outsourcing is the only answer, just the best option available.
“Bread Lines!”
- There is very little evidence that people who’ve lost their jobs to outsourcing are unable to find work long term. Perhaps a programmer previously making 100k won’t be able to find another job making 100k. And perhaps that indicates he or she was overpaid to begin with. Or perhaps they won’t be able to continue in the same field. But…nobody guaranteed you career longevity to begin with. That you think it’s implied is a farce. That is the reality you refuse to deal with.
You haven’t even begun to support your contention that outsourcing is harmful to the economy as a whole. The most you’ve done is to parade its endless “victims” as though they are proof positive of economic harm beyond your little sphere. You’re pissing into the winds of prevailing economic thought. It’s your job to prove why your hands and ankles shouldn’t be wet.
Scott
Meh…It’s the BuggyWhip syndrome.
I thought this was a funny post about the damn hippies. . .
Brian, I’ve read down and seen that you’ve typed a whole lot in reply to this thread, but i’ve seen neither direct answers to questions, precise rebuttals to particular arguments or policy recommendations of any kind. There seems to be a whole lot of not very much at all.
Should I pretend to be surprised?
All I’ve seen from Brian is alot of questions and useless rhetoric.
Hey Radley,
The photo blog was good but not nearly as funny as the one lest year (or a couple of years) ago on the same suject. I enjoyed it though.
Brain,
Why don’t you open up a business and CREATE a job for yourself, instead of excepting someone else to?
Jackass
Or put another way, even had your own business? If not, shut up.