Thread: Is the US losing the cold war?

Originally Posted by Commodore

I don't think outsourcing inevitably occurs. I think the unions make it necessary by making American labor so uncompetitive.

A structured bankruptcy would have voided all the union contracts and allowed the factories and intellectual property to go foreword without that burden.

you really should try to understand that the US is very efficeint in manufacturing.

Originally Posted by Moonglow

you really should try to understand that the US is very efficeint in manufacturing.

If that where the case, outsourcing wouldn't be an issue.

Originally Posted by Commodore

Our interests in Iraq right now is penning the Iranians in, if he wanted to that he would have backed the Green Revolution. He choose not to. Whatever token force is left in place until or even after the status of forces agreement will not be enough to do that.

I don't think you understand how things work in Iran. The ruling powers are very anti-Western, and while some Iranians like America, Bush's reign didn't improve our relations with them.

If Obama had been more supportive of the protesters, it would've been very easy for the ruling powers to turn this against them. Public sentiment would have shifted in the favor of the Ayatollah. This is essentially what Khamenei is trying to do right now by blaming the Islamic World's problems on the West.

The less involved we get, the harder it will be for him and others like him to manipulate public sentiment against revolution. Obama's choice to remain quiet was a good one.

Originally Posted by Commodore

In Afghanistan, there is no real offensive action being taken. The southern border is still unguarded, Taliban still stream in on a regular basis. No action is being taken in Pakistan. His stated policy is to leave, and nothing is being done to make things functional after we leave.

That's not true at all, beyond the Taliban part.

The Hindu : News / International : After 28 days, U.S. drones back in action in Pak

Originally Posted by Commodore

I don't think outsourcing inevitably occurs. I think the unions make it necessary by making American labor so uncompetitive.

A structured bankruptcy would have voided all the union contracts and allowed the factories and intellectual property to go foreword without that burden.

It's possible that bankruptcy would have led to long term gains for GM production here, but frankly, American labor will always be more expensive than Russian labor, for example.

This course of action would have likely slowed moving production to Canada, but there are several other countries that GM has production in with much lower standards of living and cheaper labor.

Originally Posted by Occam's Razor

I don't think you understand how things work in Iran. The ruling powers are very anti-Western, and while some Iranians like America, Bush's reign didn't improve our relations with them.

If Obama had been more supportive of the protesters, it would've been very easy for the ruling powers to turn this against them. Public sentiment would have shifted in the favor of the Ayatollah. This is essentially what Khamenei is trying to do right now by blaming the Islamic World's problems on the West.

The less involved we get, the harder it will be for him and others like him to manipulate public sentiment against revolution. Obama's choice to remain quiet was a good one.

The Iranians hate the regime. We hate the regime. Of course the regime would have declared foreign influence, they do no matter what. The fact remains that fraudulent election got enough Iranians in the streets to take control, if they had backing.

And they didn't get it.

Originally Posted by Occam's Razor

That's not true at all, beyond the Taliban part.

The Hindu : News / International : After 28 days, U.S. drones back in action in Pak

Thats nice, but drones can't control territory.

Originally Posted by Occam's Razor

It's possible that bankruptcy would have led to long term gains for GM production here, but frankly, American labor will always be more expensive than Russian labor, for example.

That does not need to be the case.

We need to adopt robotic technology that eliminates the need for vast armies of blue collar labor. While individual factories will employ fewer workers, those jobs will pay better, and the technology will spread to other products, increasing manufacturing as a whole.

Originally Posted by Commodore

The Iranians hate the regime. We hate the regime. Of course the regime would have declared foreign influence, they do no matter what. The fact remains that fraudulent election got enough Iranians in the streets to take control, if they had backing.

And they didn't get it.

The Iranians also largely hate interference from the West.

Originally Posted by Commodore

Thats nice, but drones can't control territory.

Before I go to the trouble of posting another article on what we're doing in Afghanistan, what do you consider an "offensive"?

Originally Posted by Commodore

That does not need to be the case.

We need to adopt robotic technology that eliminates the need for vast armies of blue collar labor. While individual factories will employ fewer workers, those jobs will pay better, and the technology will spread to other products, increasing manufacturing as a whole.

Um... We already do that. Payrolls have steadily decreased in number in automaking. The vast majority of labor in automaking is automated.

Breaking up the unions would allow for payrolls to decrease further, but technology is not the issue here.

There's also nothing keeping this same technology from being used in countries with cheaper labor.

Originally Posted by Occam's Razor

That's kind of my point, actually. If the American government hadn't bailed out GM, the Canadian government would have spent more on keeping them afloat, but with a focus on moving operations to Canada.

The end result would have been a lot of lost jobs here and gained jobs there.

I'm not sure how realistic that is, at least in the short run, but wouldn't it have been a far better solution to have helped GM break the union through bankruptcy and make manufacturing actually affordable here?

We essentially priced ourselves out of competition then paid the difference ourselves.

Originally Posted by Donahue

I'm not sure how realistic that is, at least in the short run, but wouldn't it have been a far better solution to have helped GM break the union through bankruptcy and make manufacturing actually affordable here?

We essentially priced ourselves out of competition then paid the difference ourselves.

I agree. Again, I wasn't in favor of the bailouts. I was just explaining why Obama made the choices he did. He made a more politically palatable choice, which I think just about any other president would have done.

Even Reagan would have bailed out GM to some extent, if we can take his actual bailout of Chrysler as historical evidence that bailouts are bipartisan in nature.

Originally Posted by Occam's Razor

I agree. Again, I wasn't in favor of the bailouts. I was just explaining why Obama made the choices he did. He made a more politically palatable choice, which I think just about any other president would have done.

Even Reagan would have bailed out GM to some extent, if we can take his actual bailout of Chrysler as historical evidence that bailouts are bipartisan in nature.

That's probably true and I don't care for any party in particular but I think it's a bad decision to blur the lines between private and public sectors, particularly when we're talking about the government competing against private companies outright.

Originally Posted by Donahue

That's probably true and I don't care for any party in particular but I think it's a bad decision to blur the lines between private and public sectors, particularly when we're talking about the government competing against private companies outright.

No argument here. I prefer to let Big Business take a fall when it deserves it.

Originally Posted by Occam's Razor

No argument here. I prefer to let Big Business take a fall when it deserves it.

I oppose government intervention there for the same reasons I oppose it when it comes to entitlement programs: it promotes bad behavior.

Why shouldn't Wall Street take as much risk as possible when we just showed them we'll cover their losses? There are worse things in life than a recession and I think the occasional downturn in the economic cycle promotes more responsible business.