Air is burning in Shanghai

[MisterE]

The only things that "drive" corporations outside the U.S. is the chance to exploit cheap labor, poor working conditions (e.g. factories with suicide nets), "cooperative" governments (i.e. governments that you can bribe to let you destroy the water supply of local villages) and "loose" regulations (i.e. the opportunity to pollute the environment with impunity).

 

MisterE if you're pro-corporation then that's fine, people can believe whatever they want. But just don't pretend that corporations care about anything besides money. It's insulting.

i'm sure cheap labor has a lot to do with it also. but a corp founded in america would normally have some pressure to stay in america due to public relations, being able to say their product is 'made in america', which used to mean something. nowdays nothing is so that whole concept barely exists as a marketing thing, and when it is said that something is made in america it's by a very loose definition. so the regulations that exist in america, which can be pretty heavy whether you want to admit that or not, just give them the perfect excuse to finally pack up and leave and exploit that cheap labor and complete absence of regulations.

 

but this is all still beside the point, and this is where i never will understand occupy types. they always want to blame corporations and business, but not the government. it's like they are too dense to realize that the government is ran by the very same type of power lusting people who become mega successful in business, even in the face of all the contributions to campaigns from wall street/big business that goes to BOTH PARTIES (obama seemed to enjoy a lot more of that in the last election, which seems to make the fact that prob most occupier voted on his re-election a bit 'funny').

 

a certain party are the ones always bringing up global warming, using it to help themselves get re-elected, to get richer, to get campaign contributions from green energy outfits in exchange for grants, and to fearmonger everyone against the other party. they have essentially taken on the mantle of being super heros who are the ones trying to save all of us from melting in the future. this party also uses global warming to justify all these regulations they enforce over here in america. whether those regulations are the biggest force that drives those industries over seas or just a smaller part of it, either way it still doesn't go against my main point here. which is, why does this party, who regulates to oblivion here in the states, and is already looking to come out with new rounds of regulations, why is it that when they get in charge, they don't regulate our trade with china? if they really care about global warming killing all of us, it would be the OBVIOUS, biggest main thing to do next.

 

if america wasn't the biggets consumer of cheap chinese goods, if we weren't buying their stuff at all, would their skies be as polluted? they pretty much depend on our business. does it matter where the smog is being pumped into the atmosphere? well, to me it seems like it does, to those politicians. in terms of global warming, it shouldn't. but they don't really seem to care about that do they? because they are doing nothing about china. they have plenty of power. they could just say 'we won't buy your stuff until you play by the same rules as us'. but they won't. so really all they are doing is piling on to the list of reasons for US business to move overseas. it's as if that's exactly what they want. i mean, it does result in US citizens being more able to get the latest greatest update to whatever line of gadget is currently hip. as if the latest iphone is really a huge advancement to the previous? i mean it would really kill americans to have to make do with an iphone 4 for a few more years instead of upgrading right away? or if it actually took longer for the next iphone to come out, and when it did it was more expensive? fuck yeah, i guess it would. so lets pass whatever laws we can to facilitate sending those factories over to a 3rd world where we can ultimately exploit those slaves over there, so that we can get enough distractions in the form of gadgets to our slaves over here.

 

if they actually cared about global warming/world pollution (and as lump pointed out, some of that smog actually blows over here anyway, so it's not even just a long-term concern), they'd do SOMETHING about china. our pres hasn't even done anything about how they manipulate their currency so it's not likely. our politicians are HAPPY with this situation. the smog isn't in our backyard. and judging from your post where you said 'thats why they have crappier air over there, because we regulate' it's like maybe that's all this is about. getting it out of our back yard. and getting cheaper labor to make our gadgets so they are cheaper. see, to me, that reeks of hypocrisy. you want to focus on the parts of my post where i mention regulation over here, and completely ignore the idea of regulating our trade with them, because you know it's a joke that the issue hasn't been brought to the table. it unravels the whole notion that any of our politicians care about global warming or pollution as a problem for earth's future. they just pass more and more regulations here because it can look like they are doing something to the total morons who don't want to think about where their new phone came from or how it was made.

[MisterE]

and on top of all that, if that's not enough, the funniest part of all of this, is that if the gov did things to make those companies want to keep their production HERE, they actually would have some amount of regulation! they wouldn't be able to just be pumping out tons of smog every day! but over there they can. our gov seems to have done next to nothing to entice them to stay, and just keeps doing more to make it less profitable for them to stay instead. that's the ironic part. if they worked to keep them here, maybe by relaxing the regulations just a bit, at least there would be somewhat less pollution being pumped into the air. if those factories were here where they had some kind of rules. cellphones, tvs, etc would be more expensive though, and we can't have that can we? america really has become a consumerist nation, and it's just as much the left wing's fault (who are the ones mocking us for becoming that) as it is anyone else's. i'll change my tune when obama or the dems in house push to do something about china and our relations with them.

 

if they really cared about the pollution AND the US job situation, theyd realize that to control the amount of smog coming out of those factories, they have to keep them here first and foremost. THEN figure out how to cut back on emissions. but with them over there, you have little to no say over that (unless you tell them to cut back or we stop buying, which they won't do either). instead they just want to regulate first then complain about how they all left, and ultimately not have to deal with any of it. but it looks good to their voter base who they scare about tomorrows sky melting, when they can be seen to regulate even further, the already little existent american industry. it's how cali rolls too, buy your power from other states. keep that shit outta our backyards! what a sustainable model. which everyone can follow, right? everyone should just do less pollution, buy your energy from somewhere else! buy your goods from somewhere else! makes sense right!?

[LimpyLoo]

 

but this is all still beside the point, and this is where i never will understand occupy types. they always want to blame corporations and business, but not the government. it's like they are too dense to realize that the government is ran by the very same type of power lusting people who become mega successful in business, even in the face of all the contributions to campaigns from wall street/big business that goes to BOTH PARTIES (obama seemed to enjoy a lot more of that in the last election, which seems to make the fact that prob most occupier voted on his re-election a bit 'funny').

 

 

Where did you get this idea? I am an "occupy type" and I think the U.S. government is a bunch of corrupt corporate shills. I don't know anyone who thinks corporations are a problem and that the government isn't.

 

Also when you say "BOTH PARTIES" like that you seem to think that this is a dem vs. repub thing and that I must be a democrat because I have leftist views and that I'm bashing the republicans or something.

[MisterE]

 

 

but this is all still beside the point, and this is where i never will understand occupy types. they always want to blame corporations and business, but not the government. it's like they are too dense to realize that the government is ran by the very same type of power lusting people who become mega successful in business, even in the face of all the contributions to campaigns from wall street/big business that goes to BOTH PARTIES (obama seemed to enjoy a lot more of that in the last election, which seems to make the fact that prob most occupier voted on his re-election a bit 'funny').

 

 

Where did you get this idea? I am an "occupy type" and I think the U.S. government is a bunch of corrupt corporate shills. I don't know anyone who thinks corporations are a problem and that the government isn't.

 

Also when you say "BOTH PARTIES" like that you seem to think that this is a dem vs. repub thing and that I must be a democrat because I have leftist views and that I'm bashing the republicans or something.

 

well first off i'm not painting with big broad strokes and suggesting that anyone who ever went to an occupy protest is some kind of idiot, but

a) you've told me you were an occupier

b) i didn't say you did think the gov was a bunch of corrupt corporate shills. but they are. still, gov is where the laws are made so imo getting honest people in there who won't be shills, and might pass laws to make it harder for the next generation who comes in to be shills, should be everyone's primary focus. not wall street itself.

c) i never said occupy didn't acknowledge that some of the prob came from DC, but their focus imo, was far too much on wall street than on the gov. and it just so happens to be a bit of 'left wing propaganda' that O himself is pushing, to minimize the idea of gov being the problem, or even a significant part of it.

d) you said some comment about how i'm just regurgitating right wing propaganda, so that would prob explain why i ever said a phrase like 'both parties'. both parties use propaganda. one actually uses global warming to advance their careers/power/wealth (with obama most recently giving an A-OK to the deaths of endangered eagles at windfarms, a very 'green' thing to do i suppose), and as i've said (and as is the point i've made 3 times now and you won't acknowledge), doesn't do the most obvious thing it could to actually deal with it. china is the obvious place to focus any global warming related efforts. but i think it's pretty clear that the same party has almost total control of the media though, considering how none of these american journalists ever thought to ask tough questions about obamacare in the years leading up to it taking effect. i mean, wonder how long the journalists knew that younger, healthy 20-30somethings would be the ones paying for everything, or about all the cancellations, and didn't report on it? 2yrs? 3? now it's like it hits and they act like even they had no idea. and write articles trying to excuse how they dropped the ball. that whole article should just say 'we are in the tank for O, that's why' under the headline. and you want to talk about right wing propaganda.

[LimpyLoo]

1) Yeah lots of people pay lip service to global warming and then do nothing. Obama, for instance. Most governments of the world. At least corporations don't even pretend to care. Of course none of this detracts from the fact that global warming is actually a problem. My father's attitude was that since Robert Kennedy Jr is a hypocrite then we shouldn't try to address global warming.

 

2) "Right-wing" doesn't necessarily mean "Republican"...Democrats are right-wing as far as I can see. (Like Chomsky said) I kinda see Democrats and Republicans as two factions of the same party. They differ on certain things like social policy and--maybe a little bit on workers' rights-- but really they're both just corporate shills.

 

3) What do you think healthcare should be in this country, MisterE? We are the only developed country that doesn't have socialized healthcare. We are also the only developed country that I know of where the government isn't allowed to negotiate pricing with insurance companies. And that of course is because corporations write the laws in the country. (I pretty much hate Obama and think he's a smooth-talking war criminal but at least he's trying to do something about healthcare...a public option would improve things drastically but corporations blah blah blah...)

 

4) I agree about stopping the endless cycle of shills in gov't. One of the major tenets of Occupy was getting money out of politics and killing Citizens United and slush funds and corporate ex-employees getting hired for gov't positions and then shameless and blatantly hooking up their former employer (sometimes referred to as "the revolving door")

[usagi]

was it Lain? I always thought it was Iain??

 

lol

[LimpyLoo]

 

was it Lain? I always thought it was Iain??

 

lol

 

 

me too honestly

[goDel]

Uh misterE,

 

First business is blamed more than government by occupy types. Then you argue that government should be blamed as well, one of the points being that politicians are the exact same type of people as those business people (euh...no broad strokes to be found anywhere?).

 

Somewhere in between I see some obvious point where you and those "occupy types" could agree, and that is that business and politics is being run by big money and big money interests. And that it really doesn't matter whether it's republican or democrats. Somehow, however, the (dis)connection isn't made that this business mindset in politics has led to too much regulations which supposedly drove businesses outside the US. That's odd, right? So they think like business men, but when it comes to think like business men they screw up big time and create anti-business regulations? OK, there might be a universe where this logic might actually work. I'm not sure which one.

 

Or did you drop that point and immediately went after the only party which hypocritically runs on green energy by doing nothing about China? They should have done SOMETHING, right? Like what exactly? You realize you'd have to invade China to actually run government to change chinese policies, right? Or do you see some possibilities in the trade agreements department? If so, what kind of agreements would you think about? Would you force businesses to make their products in the U S again and stop importing the cheaper stuff from China? Sure... More jobs...but do you really think these us businesses are going to pay us-salaries for work they could do for chinese-salaries?

 

These us businesses tend to sell their stuff worldwide, right? They're not specifically selling their stuff only in the us. So from their perspective they're competing with companies building with cheap labor regardless. Remember the concept of globalization? So if I understand you correctly, you implicitly argue the us should be a closed market. The us market is a big market, so if businesses build their products inside this big market again, jobs will be created and there will be less chinese pollution. How would that work out for those global us businesses? Or do you think everybody outside of the us will be buying us products as well. Have you bought a time machine which can take you back 60 years or something? Or are you just talking about the energy industry? California should build it's own energy plants? Is that it? The economy and the environment is saved by closing the energy markets to the state level?

 

The one primal thing which is forcing us companies to build their products abroad, is the global economy. American workers are competing with chinese, or those anywhere else. American regulations are competing with those of any other country. Tax system likewise. And I'm sure you're well aware how businesses run their cash flows through all the places with the least resistance. Same holds for regulations. And the same holds for which countries get to build which products. The result? Well, it's pretty obvious in which direction the us standard of living is heading, right?

 

And where is the involvement of government? Well, from the politics perspective, the 'political economies' are still pretty closed if you compare it to all other kinds of economies. And is politics to blame for businesses doing their things on an international scale? (Production, tax)

 

I'm not sure where you're heading with your 'non-broad' strokes, but I'm not seeing any viable solution. And I'm not seeing any argument to support or disagree with any political party/president in the us. Did I miss anything?

[goDel]

[LimpyLoo]

btw this channel is pretty cool:

[perunamuusi]

Lain C?

[Alcofribas]

this just in: occupy types don't blame government. news at 11

[LimpyLoo]

Lain C?

 

I know wtf right

 

looked like Iain C

[delet...]

It sure did, when he revealed it everyone in the thread except those already in the know went mental with wtf's. (i wasn't already in the know, pretty LainC thing to though wasn't it. ;-p)