If ace had any inkling of how the granting process works in the arts, he'd have a better idea of how it compares to the sponsorship-laden NASCAR.

Or maybe I'm just not getting his joke.

It's a joke, right?

No. Perhaps the point was missed.

"Art" is in the eye of the beholder.
"Art" that is worthy, will be supported by those who enjoy it.
Given, each person having limited resources, each person should make a personal choice where there dollars go in support of "art".

I have absolutely no interest in supporting ballet, European centered art museums, PBS, or modern art using bodily waste. The people who enjoy that should pay for it, not me. I also don't support public money used for things like sports stadiums.

How is the above position not clear?

{added} I will even go further. I think schools should focus only on core education. Extra activities like, sports, band, drams clubs, etc should be funded separately, by participants and those who want to sponsor such activities. If the tax burden was not so high, we might be surprised by the level people would support the things they love and want.

first you do some handwaving in the direction of "everyone's an artist now tra la" in that kind of inverted socialism way that retro-thinking folk seem to take some perverse glee in doing these days, then when you're asked "ok so if everyone's an artist now tra la how do you propose they live?" and you respond with some rightwing bromides about "snobby east coast liberals" and nascar, the reasonable assumption, ace, is that you're not talking about anything.

then when you try to clear it up, it turns out that such point as you were trying to make was just as disengenuous as i thought from the start.

This is getting to the point of being ridiculous from my point of view.

People make a living by selling what they do!

What don't you understand about that???

NASCAR folks have no problem getting sponsors and people to spend hundrds, even thousands of dollar to see a race during a weekend. Why can't your favorite "art", do the same??? Are they too snobbish to get companies and people to sponsor what they do???


You want to pretend there is not a social divide in this country that plays in the political arena? East coast, inside the beltway, over-educated, liberal v. Southern "cling to guns and religion", "pick-up truck driving", NASCAR loving conservative, is very measurable. Even our exchanges are rooted in this divide with a few subtle differences in some of the characteristics. So my question is, why do you persist on pretense? Why do you want things to be different than they actually are? Why do you fail to see what is real, obvious and so easy to be seen?

I doubt most reading this, see it as you do. Sure, I may be a bit more extreme than some - but I think they get it.

See, the thing is, people won't know what art they'll enjoy unless they have an opportunity to actually experience it. Much of art today would have difficulty being made because of the front-end costs of production. The business models that art operates on is completely unlike most mainstream business models. It's the nature of the beast, and as it happens, the government is one of art's biggest customers. If it weren't for government grants and tax credits, there would be no Canadian publishing industry, nor would there be a Canadian film industry. Much of this is a result of imports from the U.S. There is government monetary and public voter support for the arts in this way, as we'd rather not have this aspect of our culture be decided upon completely by foreign powers that be. This is just one example as to why art are supported like they are.

Also the granting process isn't just a handout. There are applications, requirements, audits, qualifications, and performance/operational minimums, etc. It's a part of doing business in the industry.

Unfortunately, it would be nearly impossible to have a completely hands-on democratic approach to deciding what gets spent on what.

Well it is now that you actually laid it out.

There is educational value in these things you would call "extra."

as someone who works professionally in the arts community, I find just about everything Ace is suggesting to be patently absurd.

You don't think arts groups TRY to get corporate sponsorship? OF COURSE THEY DO!!! But companies are unwilling to give money unless they can slap their logos all over it (something that would be a little awkward on a statue or a play).

Comparing NASCAR to art is ludicrous

the position ace is adopting is disengenuous in that it's not really about a coherent discussion concerning **his** claim that the transformations of the contemporary capitalist labor market are good things because they free more people up to "be artists"---this because it's obvious that he has nothing to say on the matter----it's more about a cheap rhetorical game in which ace tries to position himself (and the fact that he has nothing to say on the topic that he brought up) as being "of the people" in a stereotyped kinda way ("i'm a conservative i like nascar" as if all conservatives were like him) and by extension as someone who finds himself either being set upon by or setting upon "snobby over-educated east coast liberals" who think in terms of things like what art might possibly be (beyond "modern art using bodily waste") who artists might be and how these people might actually be able to live.

but it's pretty obvious: ace is arguing that by "freeing people up to be artists" what he really means is that people displaced by the reorganization of capitalism are superfluous and should be allowed to die off, preferably dying off while under the impression that they have been liberated from something, which would bring it into line with all kinds of charades american.

The first Broadway play I saw was Phantom of The Opera in the early 90's, because of the buzz and awards it won, I went to several other shows after that, including some of Webber's other productions - none were as good, but I have seen Phantom two other times. Phantom had broad appeal in its story and music.

Olga Korbut is the reason I watch Olympic and international championship gymnastics. Every two to four years there are similar stars who draw me to the sport. The drama and competition takes a back seat to no other sport. On the other-hand male gymnastics has very little appeal just like the WNBA has very little appeal to me, but the NBA does. Superior world-class performance stands out and generates broad interest.

Tiger Woods is the reason I occasionally watch grand slam golf tournaments, no one else and the sport has done anything to keep my interest - if he doesn't play I don't care what happens. He is the story.

Danica Patrick is the reason I recently watched some NASCAR, where that leads I don't know. She is the story.

My wife is the reason I had dinner at Spagos, Wolf Gang Puck' restaurant in Beverly Hills, and to this day we occasionally splurge on "fine dining". the over-all experience was good enough to get me hooked, in-spite of the costs. And trust me, I was prepared to tell my wife - "see I told you it would be a waste of money".

To me the tone of our comment suggests that I would never go outside my comfort zone regarding "art" because I don't know what I would enjoy or unless there is some kind of subsidy connected with it until I can gain an appreciation of it. That is a false premise. I have an awareness of the "art" that is available, and if it does not "hook" me, it is not because I don't know what I will enjoy, but has everything to do with the "art" focusing on the base level things that appeal to me regardless of form. And, there is absolutely no correlation with government subsidy and my gaining an appreciation of "art". All an artist has to do is ask me. I always enjoy a good story, simplicity, exceptional dramatic performance, underdogs over coming the odds, music with simple melodies -easy to dance to, and anything done by Clint Eastwood.

---------- Post added at 07:50 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:43 PM ----------

Right. NASCAR is just cars going around in circles. The circles ballet dancers go around in are very different. A circle is not really a circle, is it? Of course not. But if I spend disposable money going to a NASCAR race, that is disposable money I ain't spending going to the ballet. Disposable income is not disposable income is it? Aaaaagh, this is so confusing....your "art" is "art", anyone who is not into your "art" just isn't into "art", is that it?

---------- Post added at 07:55 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:50 PM ----------

Dude, your definition of "art" is far too limited. That is what is causing you to have problems with what I have posted.

I accept the fact that you don't understand my point and I accept that there is nothing further that I can do to help you understand.

right.

I'm not saying it was ludicrous because one is more "artful" than the other, but because they serve two entirely different purposes.

It's not Apples and Oranges, it's Apples and Astro-Physics

I really don't understood how people use the "apples and oranges" comparison thing now days. We can certainly compare and contrast apples and oranges, I don't get the point.

you can compare anything you want. in response, i can say that comparing the sponsorships of NASCAR and Ballet is ridiculous

I don't question your ability to say the comparison is ridiculous, I want to understand why you do.

Example: If a young person who has been kart racing and who has been seriously involved in ballet, and is exceptionally good at both, but now has to commit to one or the others, asks you for guidance - what do you say:

"I can not help you because a comparison of the two is ridiculous?"

I have to be honest here. I often reply to posts in a cynical or sarcastic manner because I think people are just screwing around with me regarding things that to me seem pretty obvious. As with our exchange on this issue, my initial reaction was to think that you are just screwing around with me. So tell me, if you are honestly willing, are you really saying that we can not compare and contrast NASCAR to ballet and take lessons from one and apply it to the other, to look at both and see their similarities rather than just focusing in on the differences, give a serious evaluation of one compared to the other, look at both as they reflect socioeconomic trends including the governing topic in this thread?

Oh, to my fans, I will return to being an a$$ for a number of other reasons shortly - there is nothing to be concerned about.:thumbsup:

[added} For East Coast liberals who may not know what kart racing is:


No government subsidies, but costs $$$$$

well for one, NASCAR is a commercial sport and most public arts groups are not-for-profit.

before the thread gets too mired in some absurd non-discussion about whether ace is able to construct a coherent argument about art funding or distinguish art-events from other events, fact is that if the article is correct there really should be concerted action from the state to expand businesses or create jobs in order to bail out folk who are not those in the hedge fund and/or insurance sector.

it is curious--or would be in a sane place---that the interests of capital are so obviously held to be more important than those of working people and no-one gets too riled up about it. right, we say. capital flows are more important than human lives. it is far more important that we think about rates of shareholder return than it is that we think about how regular folk make a living.

you'd think populist conservatism would be a contradiction in terms. markets obviously do not take care of people, they obviously do not assure socially optimal allocations of resources or opportunities. never have. never will. that the right has been able to establish a political environment for its incoherent notions of taxation as persecution and/or the state as that which is responsible for irreationalities in economic affairs remains amazing to me. i think it is the residuum of this incoherent worldview that stands in the way of anything being done to help regular folk to find work.

the conservative response seems to be to pretend there is no problem. that's always the conservative response---except when it comes to finding reasons to militarize class relations.

The conservative perspective (or at least the perspective seemingly held by fiscal conservatives) seems to require that problems be ignored. That's what "the free market" is all about. You let invisible hands guide things, and if things seem unpleasant, you cross your fingers and tell youself, "Well, this must be part of the invisible hand's divine plans." So what if people are losing their houses and their health, that's what the invisible hand does, and if we try to intervene, the invisible hand will punish us even more. It would be fucking insane to apply this type of hands-off faith to any other policy area.

Free market principles are often theology posing as economic policy.

This was actually a very interesting thread at the beginning, somewhere and I'm not sure where it's pretty much degenerated to a "nothing here folks please move along" thread.

Maybe my memory is fading in my incipient old age, but I seem to remember grousing about "jobless recoveries" coming out of every single downturn I can remember, dating back to '82-83. Jobs seem to be something of a lagging indicator - companies don't hire until they're sure the recovery isn't just a blip.

How do you think the "state" can do this?

People with interests in capital simply seek to preserve it and make it grow.
Working people or those charged with working on behalf of working people have an interest in their cause. One is not more important than another, it is simply an issue of where "interest" lies. The thought that those with strictly an interest in capital will look out for something else is, for a lack of a better word, foolish. Why does such foolishness in though persist?

How do you measure that? How did you come to such a conclusion? How do you get away with a comparison of capital to human life?

Because "rate of return" is universal and should apply to labor as well as employment of capital, the mistake is for labor to overlook this foundational measure. Without an understanding of "rate of return" and its comparative application in decision making, those who fail to employ "rate of return" are missing a valuable tool. How does labor make comparitive decisions without "rate of return" analysis. Do they use darts and go with random choice? Clearly the "regular folks" need better leadership, leaders who can think clearly.

What is simple, foundational, obvious, clear, simple, etc., is "conservatism" at the core, the reason it is not "populist" is because of the desires of the few to control the many through deception. Hence, we have people not getting an education because of the false liberal belief that some vague concept called the "state" will look out for them.

You don't think humanity has been in a market based economy since the days of the first trades conducted by pre-historic man?

Involuntary taxation is persecution. When the state has the police or military force to impose and collect taxes, not just for the costs to society but for the purposes of re-distribution (stealing from one man to give to another) that is worthy of concern, unless you are the beneficiary of such an exchange.

What I find incoherent are your views, as illustrated here.

What?

---------- Post added at 09:22 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:20 PM ----------

Why go through the trouble of writing this without being specific. Your thoughts could be a "teachable" moment.

In regards to your "what?" question, roachboy means that when it comes to market problems, the right often declares there really is no problem...except when it comes to agitating members of one class against another class.

In regards to your statement about the history of market economies, if you *have* actually taken econ 101 then you should know the definition of a market economy. No, man has not been involved in a market based economy since pre-historic times and it certainly didn't develop when our pre-historic (or anyone else, for that matter) ancestors decided to share or barter (trade) goods. Each of those are distinct economic systems.


Finally, in regards to your bewilderment over how anyone can distinguish sponsorship of NASCAR from sponsorship of the arts, even though he wrote this in his original post so you must have missed it, the main problem is in the fact that NASCAR cars, tools, any merchandise can sustain logos plastered all over them without ruining the aesthetic for most people.

This is the case with all corporate sponsored activities, as far as I know, whether it be cycling, basketball, or even complete stadiums.

Would you have enjoyed your Phantom of the Opera outing as much if Lenovo, Coke, and Toyota logos were plastered all over the actors' clothes?

Also, I don't think the point was that if you aren't exposed to arts in education you won't learn about whether you enjoy them or not! The point was that all of those activities you learned to enjoy later in your life would not have had playwrights or chefs to make the things you want to consume if they hadn't been exposed to them as legitimate career trajectories when they were in school.

TFP never lets me down. I drop by, and it's like I never left. Roachboy with multiple insulting straw men and blatant misrepresentations. AceVentura3 with the patient of a saint.


Yes, those are the Republicans all right. Anti-business, and amazingly, against borrowing a trillion dollars for a health program no one has read. Or will be allowed to read. Pro tip: "Let's do something, even if it's wrong" doesn't work well in regard to medicine.

Good thing the dems would never engage in such shenanigans, like shielding Fanny and Freddie from any meaningful reform since 2001. Oh, wait ...


This is the most intelligent post of the entire thread. Obama and the Dems just can't get it through their heads that we are out of other people's money.

Well, that certainly sounds like a wonderful business model. How could such a productive system not pay for itself? I'm reminded of the guy on another forum who is unemployed and insulted because he can't find anyone who will pay him $40/hour to be a "game tester."

Yes, and other people's money should be used to support the videocassette industry as well.

Your failure to conceptualize his point is telling. In your view, other people's money should be used to prop up anything you like. Perhaps if you and your friends contributed more to what you profess to support, there wouldn't be a problem.

I choose not to view "Piss Christ" or a photo of a man with a bullwhip up his ass. Call me crazy.

Then perhaps (!) it is outside the proper scope of government.

Looks like those who want to see the play are going to have to pay for the privilege, then.


Yes. One is popular and self-sustaining. There must not be enough people in the world who wish to view the packages of a bunch of men in tights for several hours.

Yes, it is MUCH better to increase the service on the national debt to 80% of revenue.

If you haven't read the healthcare proposal at this point, it is your problem. The damn thing has been online for a very long time. People really should learn that they are not the world, and that "I haven't read it" is not the same thing as "no one has read it."

And last I checked, the administration that passed 32 trillion dollars in unfunded entitlements (medicare part D), through reconciliation no less, was headed by a republican.

politics are are more of the same. they are there to place blame and to never really focus on the main problem of the basic thing that Governments BE IT RIGHT OR LEFT are there for. to not infringe on our rights. the right is doing it, and so is our current administration. it is not the responsibility of our government to "take care of all" but to leave us all alone and we will be fine, but since we have been on this path for some time whether you choose to see it or not, is where we are at. the mistakes that our LEFT/RIGHT govt has done brings us to these issues brought up.

I read more and more of Roachboys posts and it seems he talks alot like our current administration where he says a whole bunch but it doesnt make sense to most. I am sure there are better ways to bring your posts to reach more people if it didnt sound so confusing. call me dumb i guess. but reading Ace's posts it screams" fundamentals" of what this country was built on. Freedom. basically in my own words. I do not have a great vocabulary but i state what I say, in my own way, which is what RB may be doing but darn me if I cant seem to really follow most of the time. I actually get excited when I can actually decipher his posts.

It almost seems as RB is pushing the lefts agenda since i see alot of "conservative" statements. and not just RB but others. Who cares who did what? they are part of the same team. its like wrestling. out front they seem like they are so different, but they are not. They just all have a job to do. to divide us.

I think we should focus what is fundamentally wrong or right for us. there is a problem with this country. and govt created alot of it.

The thing that seems to be missing here is that an investment in the arts does come back. I don't know the number on the arts in general but I do know that every Canadian tax dollar spent on film and television creates $10 to $15. This comes back in taxes, tourism, services purchased, etc.

I can also see how an investment in NASCAR by the government could result in this sort of payback as well. The government invested money in support F1 here and that money has come back many times over in tourism dollars and taxes.

Too many conservatives see money going out but don't get that even their precious free market gets infusions by way of subsidies and tax breaks that amount to the same sort of investments as what arts organizations are asking for.

So you thought you'd drop by and drop a few straw men of your own? Like this:

If you had even read my post you would have found that I endorsed a plan of paying the jobless to rape small business owners and publicly funding abortions with a 200% reimbursement plan. Geez, maybe if you we're here more than once every three months and didn't come around solely to tsk-tsk all us common folk with your brilliantly cutting political wit you would have caught the subtleties of what I had wrote.

Um, I'm not sure how that has anything to do with what I said, but w/e.... :rolleyes: I'd ask you to elaborate, but I can tell---even in my confusion---that you are way off base.

Hey, how about we focus on the extreme and marginal exceptions to the rule on everything? For example, I think the American military should be disbanded on the basis of its complete ineptness because of that last friendly fire incident (not to mention all those others).... :rolleyes:

You have no idea what you're talking about if you think "the arts" consists mainly of the things you've referred to.

Try this:
Similar ratios are found in Canadian book publishing as well.

Fancy that the next time you want to think in extremes.

I love waking up to see a great thread-shitting by Marv. His post is too nonsensical and insulting to even bother responding to

As a conservative I have no ax to grind with "rich" people, "poor" people, or anyone in between. My view is, let me do my thing and you do yours on a level playing field. I have no problems with providing assistance for children, the old, and the disabled, nor do I have a problem with temporary safety nets for people in financial difficult situations. You call that conservative view "agitating members of one class against another?"

I must have missed that day in class. Based on your view, when did humanity develop the first "market economy?" Where?


When I was a kid, my grandmother watched the Lawrence Welk Show, sponsored by Geritol (I will never forget, the sponsorship is plastered in my brain), she seemed to enjoy the show inspite of the blatant commercialization of Welk's "art". So, I continue to be bewildered.

I am also bewildered by his inability or unwillingness to address the question of what advice he would give a young person presented with a delimma between choosing a career in racing, perhaps leading to NASCAR and ballet. In-spite of the premise seeming to come from a Disney movie, I know many young people who may face these kinds of choices. The ability to compare is essential, I still don't get the point.

Also, as an "artist" I am surprised by the lack of imagination or the inability to see through the "noise" and see beauty in something like NASCAR as an art form. Andy Warhol, as an "artist" was not blinded by commercialism:

http://wwff.files.wordpress.com/2007...pg?w=205&h=274

This is clearly a case of a singular focus. Yes, NASCAR cars have logos, but that is what makes NASCAR unique. Just like an Andy Warhol print, in my view a NASCAR car is a work of art. I would not expect performers on Broadway to appear as a NASCAR car does. But, if $150 ticket was reduced to a $50 ticket and I had to endure a few sponsorships before the performance, I would want to save the money and I might be more inclined to see more Broadway. I am not sure how you folks don't see that.

Perhaps the problem is that some people can not sell what they believe in. Take NASCAR, basketball, football, rap, fire fighting, etc, have no problems getting young people interested and parents willing to spend time and money. Being real, we both know some activities prefer to be highly restrictive.

I don't really understand a lot of your points. I think it's because you're often so busy arguing against *anything* you view as oppositional that you just go off on weird ass tangents.

When Roachboy is talking about "the right" he's talking about the organized political party, not what you may or may not believe as an individual. Since he's made this point abundantly clear over the years, I didn't feel the need to reiterate it.

But since you asked, yes, harping on a "level playing field" is consistent with the gist of what he was getting at. The more you post, the more slips out that your ideas consistently regurgitate the Republican party's position so I wouldn't be surprised if you post some more that your comments would fit into the mold you're questioning.


It'd take less time to look up the definition of a market economy than sit here and try to trip someone up when you're clearly wrong. Since you've expressed a desire in the past to play the "I'm just a common foke who doesn't get big wurds spoked by dem norheastern liberuls" rather than an articulate and educated conservative, there isn't much point in me continuing to question whether you understand the defining characteristics of a market economy. If you don't actually know, and you really want to know, I'm certain you will figure out how to educate yourself on the topic.


I don't want to comment too much on this bizarre confusion you're having over the NASCAR vs. art sponsorship. It's not frustrating, just pointless.

And, except for fire fighting, all of the activities you listed are taught and encouraged in primary education and extra-curricular activities so your list confirms my point instead of refuting it. Go back and re-read the discussion between us if you can't understand how that is the case.

Ask for clarification.

I like to have my thoughts challenged and I like exchanges with people who are willing to stand toe to toe and defend their views. I go where discussions flow. When a view is presented that is nonsensical to me I often use an example to illustrate it. For example, I asked a simple question - Is NASCAR art? No one answered the question, but pretended the question was pure nonsense of its face. NASCAR is an art form. They could have simply answered the question and we would have moved on to the bigger issue related to the question in the context of the post. Instead there were personal attacks.

In the past I tried to dig into the notion of individual actions in relationship to collective actions. I do not see how one can understand one without the other. Roach has never responded to this line of inquiry although it has been presented to him on several occasions. Why?

I disagree with the idea of clarity in his points. I have often asked specific questions to help me understand his points, those questions go ignored. Why?

You call it "regurgitate", I have been told I am "disingenuous", etc, setting a certain tone. When asked I give the basis of my views. I am conservative, hence my point of view is consistent with that point of view. I have given examples of the books I have read that have influenced my views, I state my biases, I state when I am closed or open to new ideas, I acknowledge my weaknesses, I cite sources, I acknowledge when I don't get it, I ask for clarification, etc, etc, etc.. Like I said I want to be challenged


If it is so clear, explain it.

I have stated many times that I have a strong bias against people who come across as trying to be intellectually superior to others because of their "education", school, station in life, where they live, or the kind of coffee they drink. Obama is a perfect example of the type of person I have a bias against, sure occasionally I poke fun at these people, but I know I do it and I know why I do it. I also tell people about my bias. Are other as open with their biases. There is a reason why I used NASCAR as an example earlier, I was not surprised by the reaction, are you?

I think the confusion is in how some narrowly define "art". Once one takes a broader view one will see the point and understand.

I don't support public funds being used for "extra-curricular" activities. Schools should focus on basic education. Other activities should be supported by participants, parents, and people who want to use their money to sponsor or support such activities. People who love theater, should support programs for young people to get them involved in theater. It is sad that people want, but are not willing to make sacrifice. Thier first thought is to let someone else sacrifice.

Considering the amount of subsidies that have been used to build NASCAR tracks and the NASCAR hall of fame, I'd be a bit more careful about using it as an example of a self sustaining business.

I am feeling reckless.

Outside of the fact that I often get blamed for going off in tangents, look back and you will find this:

My response is tax dollars should not support NASCAR in any way including subsidies for tracks. Again, I ask what is the liberal response? Why respond one way for one form of "art", and another for a different form of "art"? My initial questions were pretty simple, and were not answered for some reason. Why?

i didn't answer because i didn't think your question interesting. i still don't. not only do i think it uninteresting, but it's also a threadjack. this thread is not about what you do or do not consider to be art. the thread is about the problem of an "economic recovery" that's producing no jobs to speak of. the issue here is not whether you, ace, can come up with some nitwit argument about nascar that you imagine provokes some fantasy "snooty liberals" but rather whether there are any coherent state responses to the "jobless recovery" and whether it makes sense to perhaps include funding for "the creative classes" about which there's been alot of blah blah blah generated in non-profit land as ways to potentially persuade state outlets to fund them---in ways that may or may not have any actual impact on the lives of working artists. frequently the money that goes into "art" non-profits goes mostly to fund the non-profit itself, so much depends on the exact entity. anyway, that is the topic of the thread ace.

if you want to pursue your "provocative question" about nascar, start another thread.

I think this is less a jobless recovery and more an outsourced recovery. It's not that the jobs aren't there; it's that they're going elsewhere.

The trend of outsourcing white-collar work has been increasing even before 2008. Now, with companies being more cautious, and even more looking at ways to keep costs down or even lower them, the opportunities for outsourcing certain operations and tasks is far more appealing. India and China have made several inroads with this kind of labour, expanding on their manufacturing base. What you're seeing is more than just call-centre operations. You're now finding services including editing/proofreading, administrative tasks, converting older technologies to new, etc.

The alternative would be to hire domestic temp/contract workers, which I think is another trend to look at. When you have a series of 3- or 6-month contracts making up a reasonable bulk of the "job recovery," how does this show up in the numbers? Does it dilute them?

You made a broad reaching comment about conservatives and supporting art, there was a response to your charge, presented with a question, and now you a charge of a threadjack? :no::no::no:


In your narrow world, you don't get it and I am sucker for continued engagement. I admit my folly as I have done in the past, my flaw has been both a blessing and a curse in my life - but at least I know what it is.

---------- Post added at 07:26 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:19 PM ----------

Again, looking at the reasons for job outsourcing, if the true value of a jobs is X and the price paid is X + Y with Y being an unjustified cost added by government - those employing will go where the cost is X or X + y (smaller y). The answer remains the same, reduce or eliminate Y, to grow employment. The Y is in our control.

Secondarily, if we have a growing population who do not have "white collar" job skills due to a failing education system, employers have no choice but to go where the qualified pool of people is. In the US we are developing to distinct classes, the employable and the unemployable. I argue government is contributing to this divide.

The notion that outsourcing is taking place because of the "unjustified cost added by the government" is non-sense. No matter how much you cut taxes costs in the US will not drop to levels found in China, India, and other popular outsourcing destinations.

eScholarship: What is Good for Goldman Sachs is Good for America The Origins of the Present Crisis

i have been considering starting another thread around this but figure the likelihood of folk reading a 70 page narrative economic history of the neo-liberalism which runs from the reagan period through the early phases of the current implosion are pretty slim. but the paper that's linked here, "what's good for goldman sachs is good for america" is really quite impressive and utterly, completely devastates the various conservative myths not only about the present conjuncture of imploding housing prices, credit disappearances and no jobs but also about the links between these phenomena and neo-liberal monetarist policy. which btw doesn't become the actual guiding ideology of the imperial formation that was until the clinton period. shows you what we sometimes say about the united states being a single party state with two right wings.

i see no particular reason to take seriously conservative hand-waving about economic history and the realities that play into it, and still less their hand-waving about what should be done to address it.

the article departs from a basic argument: capitalism since the 1970s has been plagued with extremely weak fundamental characteristics as a function of a crisis of overproduction/overcapacity. but the history simply builds out from there and returns to it. the data's here. there story is interesting. and you've maybe seen popular accounts that parallel this.

there's no mystery as to why there are no jobs accompanying this "recovery"...there never was any mystery about it.

but read the article if you like.
seems to me it might be a good idea to restart a conversation around a shared information set.
we'll see what, if anything, happens.

Seems like everything that is simple and basic to market interaction, to some of you folks is non-sense. You as a consumer buy stuff from other countries because it costs less, but you think it is non-sense for a large corporation to do the same?

no, US companies doing it makes perfect sense.

it's nonsense to think that the US can compete on the production level with these other countries.

No. It's nonsense to think that the difference in production costs between china and the US is due to taxes.