Peterff Loc: O'er The Hills and Far Away, in Themyscira.

I agree, but this isn't a partisan thing. Political, yes, but Republican vs. Democrat, no.

kenArchi Loc: Seal Beach, CA

We also lost the RCA store, Magnavox, and all the individual appliance stores.

Peterff Loc: O'er The Hills and Far Away, in Themyscira.

Yes. The world is changing. We lost the dinosaurs also. We are losing a huge number of species and that trend will accelerate in the next decade.

Adapt or die, it's not just a good idea, it's the law!

pendennis

Right, not at all partisan.

The problem lies with the structure of the world economy, and the problems with how countries, regardless their political leanings, handle things like currency. We see how countries go to great lengths to protect their own economies from the predatory practices of other countries. Whether it's currency manipulation, protective tariffs, industrial espionage, theft of intellectual property, etc., governments will do what's necessary to insure the survival of that particular country.

We place great stock in patent and intellectual property (copyright, etc.), and little thought is given to how those protections affect others. Just one example is the invention of the light bulb with a sturdy filament. Thomas Edison is generally given credit for this invention, but the idea he used was in play in at least six different countries besides the U.S. The same goes for the telephone. Alexander Bell was among four inventors who had the same idea. As a result of those patents, other countries were forced to pay royalties to build telephones and light bulbs, costing the citizens of those countries untold millions of dollars in extra-high prices. And when countries like China, steal or otherwise ignore patents and intellectual property, we end up with political problems.

The above just illustrates the intricacies and complexity of even the most simple of inventions.

Peterff Loc: O'er The Hills and Far Away, in Themyscira.

OK, so as individuals what are we going to do? Something or nothing? And if something, then what?

pendennis

Individually, there's precious little we can do to affect world trade. It's unlikely that any government will make major changes in trade policy, lest we end up with similar problems after Smoot-Hawley was signed into law in 1930. That created international trade wars contributing to the Great Depression. The greatest protection is insistence on free and fair trade, but it takes a great deal of courage and political calculation to pull of one of those coups.

I remember complaints about Japanese dominance of the camera markets in the 1970's; yet, there were no American camera makers left to built 35mm SLR cameras. Japan, and a few European manufacturers were the only game in town. That won't change, unless and until, labor rates equalize globally. I'll never live to see it, and I doubt that two generations younger will, either.

anotherview Loc: California

Workers function as a factor of production under capitalism. This economic model involves competition as its defining motor. This dynamic calls for reducing and controlling costs of production, to meet competition. In turn, capitalists naturally seek to pay labor less.

The capitalists do not take account of the social costs of competition, except in a very limited way, via funding unemployment insurance. This program itself serves as a factor of production. Because all companies pay for this insurance, it does not directly affect competition. This built-in cost thus becomes a cost of doing business.

Capitalism will not go away anytime soon. Neoliberalism, a child of capitalism in some views, has become the prevailing ideology of our time. We see its visible manifestation of factory relocation to low-wage nations growing from free trade, a key concept of this ideology.

Hence, a company can make a given camera anywhere to sell it anywhere, at a price allowing profit.

Bugfan Loc: Toronto, Canada

What can we do? Maybe nothing or maybe a great deal. It's not just the wage gap that separates prices, it's the sustainable development gap, it's the clean air and environment gap, it's the climate change gap, it's the worker benefits and working conditions gap too. Clearly those industries who are concerned about such things and thus try to manufacture in a manner consistent with saving the planet and their workers, they wil incur higher costs regardless of where they manufacture. Sure Chinese workers work for less than North American workers, but the country is only starting to take an interest in climate change, sustainability, clean air. Once they start to worry about this and do something about it their product costs will start to mirror our own too. Nations who are currently on the list of nice cheap places to manufacture don't yet have planet friendly legislation in place. Later when their own people get fed up with this, they stop being manufacturing friendly.

What we can do is perhaps accelerate this process of levelling the cost of goods. Don't simply ask about the price, it's going to be attractive of course. Ask about sustainability, ask about pollution, ask about toxins in rivers and lakes, ask about whether workers have healthcare, ask about working conditions for workers, ask about what we hold dear here in terms of protecting our society and our workers and our planet. If you don't like the answers don't buy the product. If the western world would adopt that kind of an attitude you'd find things changing quickly because the manufacturers would not have a market to sell to. That's what we can all do though I'll admit it's hard and controversial too. But what's the choice? To not do it maintains the status quo and we already know that's not the solution.

kenArchi Loc: Seal Beach, CA

Charge import taxes so that their products match our pricing. This will increase funds to the government.
Or charge import luxery sales taxes.

My boss said to me "are you going to worry about your competition or go out and produce sales." Results, I became #one in sales. And kept climming up from there.

So, I think the point is, we need to get up out of the Armchair Rut and just move forward because no one is going to waite for you.

jjwig

I realize that it's very easy to point and blame and lay our problems and issues upon the lap of others but let's please keep in mind that this site is about photography! I haven't seen anything but political rants for days! Get back to the subject folks! There r plenty of political forums out there if u really want or need that!

pendennis

In a perfect world, your thesis may have some validity. However, in the real world, involving real people, your "sustainability" models just don't work.

First, people have neither the time, nor the inclination, to do reams of research on each and every product which they consume. And the folks who espouse this, don't have the expertise, either.

Capitalism is effective because of the division of labor, folks becoming more specialized in their labor. Failure to specialize means the end of technological advance, ergo, the end of scientific advancement. Technology always precedes science.

Alternative energy sources, bio- and solar, are not sustainable. In solar, there has to be some manner of energy storage for the periods which there is no sunlight. That's battery, and it means that the energy has to be converted from DC to AC for transmission and usage. Bio fuels are hugely inefficient. The cost of production is double the cost to produce the crop. And fuels like ethanol are corrosive, even to stainless steel. Corn is a food, and the reduction in available land to produce food, causes a huge financial hardship on the poor, who have to pay more just to subsist.

The most economical means of energy production is through oil, coal, and nuclear. Oil reserves are huge, and even at current estimates of usage, will last for over 100 years. Coal is the original renewable energy source. It was created 350 million years ago through photosynthesis, and in its most economical usage, provides cheap energy to millions. In fact, its usage to the most poor of countries, would enable them to raise the standard of living and improve their economic lives. Nuclear is the most economical, and with the exception of the stupidity of the Soviet Union, has been safe beyond any other energy source. (Three Mile Island's problem was the result of human error, ignoring the reactor's warnings)

The costs of materials, whether steel, plastics, textiles, are inelastic in economic terms. Their costs as commodities on the world markets are governed there. If you want to sell iron ore or oil, you can't sell for less than the market price very long. Labor costs are also inelastic in any particular country because of unions, labor laws, etc. Labor laws in France do not translate to labor laws in South Africa. In the total cost of goods sold, indirect costs are widely variable depending on where the goods are produced; for the same reasons as labor.

Economic development must be evolutionary, as is life itself. An economic group can't skip from Step B, to Step E, and not pay a dear price. Developing countries must build infrastructure, and at times the most simplistic of means. Road, sanitary facilities, food markets, and other parts just can't be skipped.

pendennis

That's usually the point with import taxes. However, the revenue shouldn't go to the government, except the cost of administering that particular import tax. Putting any revenue of the sort just causes the government to choose "winners and losers" to the loss of the market.

As to luxury sales taxes, why tax import luxuries? All you do with those taxes is to create animosity among countries. They will retaliate, taxing U.S. luxury goods exported to them. You end up with another trade war.

kenArchi Loc: Seal Beach, CA

This CRAP gives me a headache!!

pendennis

This is the dilemma with which economists deal regularly. It's also the same problem with governments everywhere, even with the most libertarian.

Nothing happens in the world without some type of reaction to the action. Newton's Third law applies to economics, also.

I've read a couple of books by Matt Ridley, a distinguished British scientist and author. In his book "The Evolution of Everything: How Ideas Emerge", he goes into great detail about how man's evolution has taken place, and how ideas emerge to the mainstream. I'm in the middle of "The Rational Optimist: How Prosperity Evolves". In it he explains how economic activity started, from the onset of civilization, with the hunter-gatherers, to modern economic cooperation. These are not "breeze through" books. They're scholarly works which take a bit of thinking, along with reading them. One of the things I've taken away, is that everything emerges from the bottom, up; not the top, down. It's why governments have little, to any business in economics theory and development.

Peterff Loc: O'er The Hills and Far Away, in Themyscira.

It seems that we have come full circle, so to speak!