ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2016 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Monday, May 25, 2015

We're going to need a bigger facepalm

More brilliance from the genius-commenters at File 770. Seriously, what you have to remind yourself whenever you read them is to keep in mind that they quite genuinely believe that they are our intellectual betters. It makes everything much, much funnier.
Glenn Hauman on May 25, 2015 at 9:51 am said:
Stevie: The deal with Tor means that Scalzi gets to write, and all the other stuff is done by Tor who are better at it than Scalzi is; VD is too egotistical to accept that he isn’t the best at everything he does. Scalzi certainly has a healthy ego but he’s got the brains to know that it doesn’t make any sense to spend his time doing something which other people do better

More, that implies that Beale has never heard of Ricardo’s theory of comparative advantage, which states that you should be doing what you’re best at even if you do other things better than other people, as it’s a waste of your efforts otherwise. Surprising for Beale to claim to be so well versed in economics and yet be ignorant of a basic tenet of the field.
I wonder what Mr. Hauman believes I was addressing when I wrote the column entitled The Religion of Free Trade, which begins in the following manner:

Let us suppose I told you of a certain doctrine in which millions of people believe without ever having read the book in which it is contained, which is predicated upon a situation that has never existed, and promises positive consequences that not only have never been delivered, but we are told cannot even be measured and cannot be realized without achieving something that has never been done before in the history of Man. Furthermore, the doctrine was developed by a gambler and politician with absolutely no credentials or qualifications on the subject, which subject he had never encountered before the age of 27, in tandem with a related theory that is so obviously insane that barely anyone has ever even heard of it.

So long as we are careful to set aside any reliance upon the genetic fallacy, does this sound like a doctrine that is not only infallible, but one that it would be crazy to even consider questioning? And yet, the fervor with which the advocates of the free-trade doctrine defend David Ricardo’s outdated, disproven theory of comparative advantage and decry those who question it is so ferocious as to indicate the nature of a belief that can only be described as religious.

David Ricardo was without question a brilliant and successful man, but what is much less often noted is how intellectually dishonest he was. In a previous WND column, titled Free Trade Harms America, I showed how Joseph Schumpeter labeled his peculiar and tautological method of argument the “Ricardian Vice.” Furthermore, he was not even the original author of the theory of Comparative Advantage, it having been first introduced by Robert Torrens in “An Essay on the External Corn Trade” two years before Ricardo transformed a specific argument for a specific situation into something passing for a general principle, which he published in “On the Principles of Political Economy and Taxation.”


Truly, my ignorance on the subject, which I also addressed in 2010 and in 2014, astounds. The theory of Comparative Advantage also came up in my interview with Ian Fletcher, who has devoted a considerable amount of time and effort to utterly demolishing Ricardo.

Remember, SJWs always lie. And perhaps more importantly, we again see an example of the midwit having so little ability to grasp what his intellectual superior is saying that he erroneously assumes stupidity and ignorance on said superior's part. As it happens, I am probably one of the 100 people on the planet most equipped to discuss David Ricardo's theory of comparative advantage in critical detail, so it is vastly amusing to see Mr. Hauman assert that I am "ignorant of a basic tenet of the field."

Perhaps Mr. Hauman, being such a noted expert in Ricardian theory, would do us all the favor of calculating the real value of Mr. Scalzi's new contract based on the only true determinant of profit.

And just to be clear, if you are not one of the five people reading this who understand the reference, that is a joke.

Labels: ,

74 Comments:

Anonymous NorthernHamlet May 25, 2015 4:04 PM  

Ricardo’s theory of comparative advantage, which states

At which point, I thought stfu, you moron.

Anonymous fish May 25, 2015 4:07 PM  

More, that implies that Beale has never heard of Ricardo’s theory of comparative advantage, which states that you should be doing what you’re best at even if you do other things better than other people, as it’s a waste of your efforts otherwise.

I'm not sure there is a palm sufficiently large for that mistake!

Blogger bob k. mando May 25, 2015 4:07 PM  

Perhaps Mr. Hauman, being such a noted expert in Ricardian theory, would do us all the favor of calculating the real value of Mr. Scalzi's new contract based on the only true determinant of profit.

And just to be clear, if you are not one of the five people reading this who understand the reference, that is a joke.



ah, but we all know that Vox is too ignorant to understand the joke.

*wink, wink, nudge, nudge*

Blogger Dexter May 25, 2015 4:10 PM  

But I quoted a name everyone has heard even though, like me, they've never read his book, so I win!

Blogger Dexter May 25, 2015 4:13 PM  

If Scalzi should be doing what he's best at, he should be marketing other people's books, not writing his own.

The one thing we know for sure Scalzi is good at... is marketing himself on the internet... but apparently he should not self-publish and market his work on the internet because Ricardo.

Blogger Josh May 25, 2015 4:20 PM  

Perhaps Mr. Hauman, being such a noted expert in Ricardian theory, would do us all the favor of calculating the real value of Mr. Scalzi's new contract based on the only true determinant of profit.

At least 660,000 bushels?

Anonymous Rolf May 25, 2015 4:22 PM  

Not sure about size, but how about more face-palms than an octopus watching the Republicans explain their latest sell-out? Would that work for you?

Anonymous Daniel #0189 May 25, 2015 4:33 PM  

Who are the Republicans?

Blogger Josh May 25, 2015 4:41 PM  

Who are the Republicans?

They're like the aristocrats, but more degenerate.

Blogger maniacprovost May 25, 2015 4:42 PM  

Does your book on economics address comparative advantage?

They also appear to make the following hilarious assumptions:
*Vox is a good writer and shouldn't waste his time publishing, or possibly the converse;
*Vox, editor at a publisher, is opposed to publishers
*No one would buy Scalzi's books if he self-published.

OpenID kbswift May 25, 2015 4:45 PM  

Looks like the read-until-offended point was reached here: "But Scalzi is neither a self-confident man nor an entrepreneur, so it is entirely in character that he'd prefer to give up the equivalent of about five birds in the bush in favor of the one in Tor's hand."

Blogger Cail Corishev May 25, 2015 5:23 PM  

the only true determinant of profit.

Um, underpants?

Maybe I'm not one of the five.

Blogger Expendable Faceless Minion May 25, 2015 5:28 PM  

Thanks Vox!

I've long had disagreements with Friedman, as his Open Borders leads to colonization, since in western society, we pay our colonizing invaders to breathe and reproduce.

Open trade with huge competitors leads to them putting your critical industries out of business (who can absorb a loss longer:
US manufacturers of damn near everything or China?
US oil fracking companies or the House of Saud?

I look forward to reading all your econ stuff.

Blogger maniacprovost May 25, 2015 5:30 PM  

Um, underpants?

The amount of labor used to produce the goods or services, maybe. But then you have the Underpants Event Horizon to worry about.

Blogger Expendable Faceless Minion May 25, 2015 5:33 PM  

The 'true determinant of profit' is what there is after an activity that didn't exist before.

At least that's what I've always assumed

Blogger Salt May 25, 2015 5:37 PM  

More like an /asspalm. Cover that Mr. Hauman, you're embarrassing yourself.

Blogger GK Chesterton May 25, 2015 5:53 PM  

I'm sorry I'm not following the threads any more. The amount of sheer lack of morality and logic frustrates me. But I thank others for keeping abreast of the liars. I also see:
http://file770.com/?p=22721

Because "Grandma's Sex Robot" is obviously a brilliant theme for an award winning book. It is amazing what grandparents have become. I saw a man the other day who was obviously wealthy. He lived in a very uperclass neighborhood and despite being disabled was clothed well...

...except for the nose ring. Which reached well down over his top lip. All I could think was, "this is what grandparents look like now to far too many children." How long will that generational psychological damage last?

Blogger maniacprovost May 25, 2015 5:56 PM  

Off topic... Joe Arpaio has a legal fund. http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-ff-arpaio-20150524-story.html

On topic... WTH is Hauman's problem? Does he really want to put himself in the middle of this? Apparently so.

Anonymous The other robot May 25, 2015 5:57 PM  

Scalzi should stick to lying about his website traffic, as that seems to be what he does best.

Blogger Zimri May 25, 2015 6:07 PM  

"If Scalzi should be doing what he's best at, he should be marketing other people's books, not writing his own."

Tor might *really* be paying him to do just that, when Scalzi blurbs on a fellow Torling's back cover. The lowest-information SF reader will think "oh, he's famous"; next-lowest will think "I liked OMW, I trust this". (I assume that the doctrinaire Left and Right cancel each other out and that their numbers are negligible to Scalzi's potential audience.)

Blogger Daniel May 25, 2015 6:48 PM  

I think Glenn "almost human" Hauman may be the stupidest of the lot. He puts his name on all the idiocies, and hasn't figured out the SJW codetalk yet.

Blogger V May 25, 2015 7:21 PM  

Bigger facepalm indeed. I've been much happier diversifying my skill set and have found far more value in others who have taken the Admiral's admonitions on what a man should be able to do. Or at least found them to be far more interesting. Specialization is for insects.

Anonymous zen0 May 25, 2015 7:46 PM  

We're going to need a bigger facepalm

How about this for facepalm potential

(hat tip, Markku)

Blogger LP 999/Eliza May 25, 2015 8:16 PM  

What a truthful, fearless path our host walks.

These 'people' dont even do homework.They do not know Vox wrote TIA, Return of the Great Depressish, covered Ricardo numerous times, our gracious host has a mastery knowledge of economics and other vital bases of knowledge.

Superintel plus AWCA wins over persons who have no idea - totally uniformed. So uniformed its beautiful to correct, educate and exit another failure.

I challenge the commenter to debate Vox on these economics matters.

I challenge the commenter to debate Vox on these economics matters.

Blogger WhiteKnight May 25, 2015 8:21 PM  

My problem with Vox's position on free trade is that he seems to be ignoring a major issue: anti-competition regulations.

The assumption that a lot of commenters here, along with Vox, are making is that America is at a competitive disadvantage *per se* with nations like China. We aren't. We're at a competitive disadvantage *in certain areas* because our political class is wedded to economic regulations that hurt domestic economic competition, the Wagner Act being a big example.

Fighting free trade actually gives more political ammunition to people who want more anti-competitive regulations. And, of course, as Bastiat showed, it also hurts domestic *consumers*. When you, for example, increase the tariffs on imported cars, it reduces the competitive pressure on domestic car producers, so they put less effort into economizing on their production process.

Businesses invest in productive and allocative efficiency only to the extent that they must do so in order to remain profitable. Reducing competition, including *foreign* competition, and you reduce their need to do so. And we pay more for their products as a result.

Anonymous Amok Time May 25, 2015 8:22 PM  

"...when Scalzi blurbs on a fellow Torling's back cover.

As, someone very smart and sometimes mistaken for a Navy Seal, i approve this effort. Although, my own writings are something you should read first. They can be located here, here and .........

Blogger VD May 25, 2015 8:28 PM  

My problem with Vox's position on free trade is that he seems to be ignoring a major issue: anti-competition regulations.

Way to focus on the irrelevant trivia. Who cares if the nation gets completely destroyed, what if the cars don't get the best possible gas mileage? The horror!

Fighting free trade actually gives more political ammunition to people who want more anti-competitive regulations. And, of course, as Bastiat showed, it also hurts domestic *consumers*. When you, for example, increase the tariffs on imported cars, it reduces the competitive pressure on domestic car producers, so they put less effort into economizing on their production process.

Oh, give it up already. That is 1970s era free trade nonsense. The problems caused by free trade are several orders of magnitude worse.

Blogger Brad Andrews May 25, 2015 8:34 PM  

I have been convinced that free movement of peoples is not a good thing, especially when you fund their invasion with stupid policies and money following that.

I have yet to see compelling arguments why free trade requires free movement of people however, though I know it is a core principle of Vox's stance.

I also have less trust in anyone in government deciding exactly what trade should be allowed. Our ruling class is far too corrupt to trust with that. Perhaps that would be better than what we have, but I would like to see a stronger case there.

That said, the idiocy of claiming you can only do what you do the complete best is bogus. Does that mean that I could not take some of my "holiday" time today and save $100-200 putting in a new toilet myself? I didn't get to do some recreational activities and I could have focused more on other things that I am better at, but that is not a requirement for success.

Blogger Brad Andrews May 25, 2015 8:35 PM  

Vox,

Do you trust those "in charge" to properly manage trade?

Anonymous MrGreenMan May 25, 2015 8:47 PM  

@WhiteKnight

We're a long way from the Harding-Coolidge trade agreements with wealthier nations. But we are over 30 years into the warm glow of the Reagan era vision of trade agreements and international government to control trade. Are things getting better? At some point, you have to set the theory aside - it can't just be that communism would work if the right ethnic group, "maybe the Germans", did it.

Blogger Desiderius May 25, 2015 8:58 PM  

VD,

"The problems caused by free trade are several orders of magnitude worse."


That ratio ebbs and flows. So should trade policy. Likewise immigration.

Blogger Joshua Sinistar May 25, 2015 9:05 PM  

Gosh, I didn't know that Ricky Ricardo was an economist! Does that mean Lucy can be in the show now? Maybe she can run a Savings and Loan like Neil Bush?
Still if Karl Marx can be a scientist, then why can't a Cuban Nightclub singer be an economist? Can't be any worse than Paul Krugman, the Nobel Prize Winning Fishwrap Decorator. I hear those fishwraps are going out of business though. I guess those dead Fish just don't want the same old same old around their corpses at the market anymore. You know how finicky Dead Fish can be. Maybe Krugman can play Oscar Madison on Broadway? If Brooke Shields can be Morticia Addams, why not?
It must be sweet being an economist. You don't have to be as accurate as the weatherman is in New England, and if people say you're wrong they can just say you're a denier for not denying reality.
If only more people took a more sensible approach to money matters like using Math? Fortunately, most people have the Math skills of Bonzo the Chimp in a Ronald Reagan movie. That's why you should probably use the time proven methodology of the Magic 8-Ball, because Voodoo Economics involves Faith and God knows nobody has any of that anymore!

Blogger cavalier973 May 25, 2015 9:23 PM  

I really wouldn't waste my time, WhiteKnight. Apparently, mutually beneficial exchange is something that just can't be allowed if it happens across national borders.

Blogger Cail Corishev May 25, 2015 9:28 PM  

My problem with Vox's position on free trade is that he seems to be ignoring a major issue: anti-competition regulations.

Everyone spot the Gamma Tell? Ever since we discussed that, I see them everywhere. Very handy.

Anonymous zen0 May 25, 2015 9:43 PM  

@ cavalier973

I really wouldn't waste my time, WhiteKnight. Apparently, mutually beneficial exchange is something that just can't be allowed if it happens across national borders.

Mutually beneficial exchange and free trade are not synonymous.
Ergo, your rhetoric fails.

Blogger Corvinus May 25, 2015 9:45 PM  

Everyone spot the Gamma Tell? Ever since we discussed that, I see them everywhere. Very handy.

"seems to be"

Anonymous Quartermaster May 25, 2015 9:46 PM  

Given the state of higher ed these days, I doubt he understands Ricardo sufficiently to intelligent discuss what Ricardo accepted or his base assumptions. Having read most of VD's WND columns when they were published, I know VD does understand.

The SJW enemy must find a way to disqualify us. They have utterly nothing if they can't disqualify us. Thus the desperate spamming trying to find something, anything, that will stick.

Blogger Brad Andrews May 25, 2015 9:46 PM  

Note that I am not trying to argue the issue with my question above, just to clarify that position. I suppose the answer is an implied "yes" since someone has to set the tariffs and such and those in charge would be the ones to do so, whoever they are.

Blogger Jake May 25, 2015 9:55 PM  

"Everyone spot the Gamma Tell? Ever since we discussed that, I see them everywhere. Very handy."

Not to mention derailing the thread by arguing about Vox's position on free trade and Ricardian comparative advantage when it's irrelevant to the post. The issue is not "Is Vox's position on free trade correct" it's "is Vox familiar with Ricardo?"
and perhaps "can we push the SJW's to even greater levels of fail?" Maybe get them to publicly question his game developer credentials, or whether Spacebunny is real, or loudly proclaim the title of this blog has been incorrect for all these years...

Wait, never mind.

Blogger Nate May 25, 2015 9:57 PM  

holy. shit.

Blogger bob k. mando May 25, 2015 10:11 PM  

WhiteKnight May 25, 2015 8:21 PM
The assumption that a lot of commenters here, along with Vox, are making is that America is at a competitive disadvantage *per se* with nations like China. We aren't.



yes, we are.

there is not even the theoretical possibility of 'free trade' between a 'free' nation and a slave nation. and don't kid yourself about the status of the Chinese. the ChiComs have loosened up a bit, but they can go Tiannenmen Square again any time they feel like it.

then you have the strategic consideration:
you're off shoring production and wealth to a nation which has sworn, multiple times, to destroy us. not exactly the brightest move.

THEN we arrive at the problem of US laws ( min wage ) and regulations ( EPA, OSHA, MSHA, etc ) which seriously hamper us relative to China.



zen0 May 25, 2015 9:43 PM
Mutually beneficial exchange and free trade are not synonymous.
Ergo, your rhetoric fails.



also, any 'free trade' agreement which runs to a thousand pages plus is NOT 'free' in any meaningful sense.

it doesn't take more than a single page to say "We won't put tariffs on your exports if you don't put tariffs on our imports."

so his argument fails on the factual level as well.

Anonymous FriarBob May 25, 2015 10:16 PM  

@ Cail Corishev

When/where was this "gamma tell" discussed?

Blogger Buddy E. May 25, 2015 10:22 PM  

'More facepalm than certain Hindu gods can provide '

Blogger Josh May 25, 2015 10:26 PM  

Gamma Tell

Blogger cavalier973 May 25, 2015 10:28 PM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Blogger cavalier973 May 25, 2015 10:30 PM  

It would take even less space to say "We won't put tariffs on your exports."

Blogger Cail Corishev May 25, 2015 10:32 PM  

Friar Bob,

You seem to be saying...

While it's useful for identifying Gammas, I've also found it useful for myself, in that if I catch myself starting to use a similar phrase, it means I'm not really confident enough about my point to be making it, so better to shut up and listen instead.

Anonymous zen0 May 25, 2015 10:55 PM  

Nate May 25, 2015 9:57 PM

holy. shit.


So, what you seem to be saying is.........

Blogger Josh May 25, 2015 11:01 PM  

So, what you seem to be saying is.........

Are you suggesting coconuts migrate?

Blogger bob k. mando May 25, 2015 11:15 PM  

cavalier973 May 25, 2015 10:30 PM
It would take even less space to say "We won't put tariffs on your exports."



but that's a unilateral stance, not a "bilateral trade agreement".

and if we don't have "bilateral trade agreements" running to the thousands of pages, we fail to create a great deal of makework for diplomants, lawyers and lobbyists.

and Nobel Prize Winning economist Paul Krugman assures us that it's a fallacy to consider "Broken Window Theory" economic boosting a fallacy.

so, you can see where this is going. and we burn non-NeoKeynesians at the stake around these parts.



Cail Corishev May 25, 2015 10:32 PM
it means I'm not really confident enough about my point to be making it, so better to shut up and listen instead.



no, it means *you* need to ask the speaker for clarification.

it's the fact that you are trying to remap a statement onto your own preconceived notions that marks this as a "Gamma Tell", rather than actually asking what was meant.




zen0 May 25, 2015 10:55 PM
So, what you seem to be saying is.........



that Nate thinks shit is holy?

Blogger Brad Andrews May 25, 2015 11:47 PM  

Jake,

derailing the thread

Which comment thread is completely true to the base 150 or more replies later?

Blogger The Original Hermit May 25, 2015 11:52 PM  

'it doesn't take more than a single page to say "We won't put tariffs on your exports if you don't put tariffs on our imports."'

I think it was Ann Coulter that said something to the effect of "A true free trade agreement could be written on a notecard, with plenty of room left over for required signatures."

Anonymous Bah May 26, 2015 12:04 AM  

The assumption that a lot of commenters here, along with Vox, are making is that America is at a competitive disadvantage *per se* with nations like China. We aren't. We're at a competitive disadvantage *in certain areas*

We're at a disadvantage only in those few pesky areas where the Chinese cost of production is less than ours. But as soon as our workers are willing to accept Chinese wages, the playing field will level out.

Anonymous dh May 26, 2015 12:16 AM  

We're at a disadvantage only in those few pesky areas where the Chinese cost of production is less than ours. But as soon as our workers are willing to accept Chinese wages, the playing field will level out.

The reality is though that there are many many products that you can't get made in China, no matter how much investment you make. Even huge, huge, huge huge companies like Apple have a hard time maintaining quality and supply chain in China. For them to make it work, they have to basically have a whole huge international company named Foxconn manage the workers, factories, supply chain, and to maintain it requires massive government support on a scale that's hard for westerners to imagine. So unless you are Apple or one of a few other huge companies, it's impractical to make higher quality products in China, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, etc.

I am involved in manufacturing. If you have more than say 10 drivers and say, ~12-14 processes, you are going to have so much spoilage and waste that coupled with transportation costs, you start to lose out on domestic manufacturing.

For some finished products I source from overseas, we have to building in 18-20% spoilage before shipping problems. By contrast, all of my American or Western European suppliers will commit to zero defect no overs/no under delivery before shipping and transportation damage.

There is a persistent myth that America doesn't manufacture anything anymore, but it's not true. The US is the worlds top manufacturer, without a doubt.

Blogger James Dixon May 26, 2015 12:42 AM  

And, of course, Ricardo's theory was about societies and countries, not individuals.

Allow me to provide a quote. I wonder if Mr. Hauman can tell us who is being quoted:

"A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects."

Blogger So Meh May 26, 2015 2:32 AM  

20+ years of NAFTA experience has proved Ross Perot correct. I can't say I would have taken his side of the bet 20 years ago, but can we learn from it and not make same mistake? nope. free trade is a term to shut down debate...framed at its best it can work among equals that have similar labor, contract, property right law(s) (i.e. 40 hour work week), but at its worst to disagree with free trade means you want to kill puppies....and what about the children you ignorant racist jerk(s). no stopping a bad idea who's time has come. on a happier note....looks like the makings of another SJW lie. the clocks ticking on this one to show the data or i guess blame #Gamergate or Sadpuppies somehow.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/26/science/maligned-study-on-gay-marriage-is-shaking-trust.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=first-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news

Blogger Cee May 26, 2015 3:04 AM  

The case has shaken not only the community of political scientists but also public trust in the way the scientific establishment vets new findings. It raises broad questions about the rigor of rules that guide a leading academic’s oversight of a graduate student’s research and of the peer review conducted of that research by Science.

Yet strangely, no matter how many times public trust is in scientody is "shaken," we still $#*(ing love science.

Anonymous The other robot May 26, 2015 3:24 AM  

It is amusing to see someone at File770 invoking "tradition."

Anonymous Freddy May 26, 2015 4:40 AM  

I would like to see more Chesterton, more Doug Wilson when defending your circled wagons. More self deprecating humor goes a long way.

Anonymous Stilicho May 26, 2015 5:17 AM  

But Scalzi lives near soybean fields!

Blogger Vogon X May 26, 2015 5:18 AM  

Vox's claims to be constantly amused by almost anything his opponents say or do can sometimes seem like an affectation. But I literally laughed out loud at "Beale has never heard of Ricardo’s theory of comparative advantage".

Anonymous DissidentRight May 26, 2015 6:52 AM  

I understand that free immigration is almost always bad (a huge black mark against many libertarians), but you might be able to mitigate the problem if the government was broadly libertarian and political participation was heavily regulated (i.e., no open socialists or feminists and voters/officials displaying such tendencies got their political privileges revoked).

However I don't understand how free trade is generally bad (let alone possible to stop absent a huge regulatory state), and I definitely don't see how free trade can harm a broadly libertarian/free market nation.

Blogger VD May 26, 2015 7:15 AM  

I would like to see more Chesterton, more Doug Wilson when defending your circled wagons.

They are not me. I am not them. I am, or rather, was, a high octane athlete, not a fat man who couldn't walk up a flight of stairs without puffing. I'd rather take my lead from Michael Jordan and Larry Bird.

Blogger Nate May 26, 2015 7:47 AM  

"We're at a disadvantage only in those few pesky areas where the Chinese cost of production is less than ours. But as soon as our workers are willing to accept Chinese wages, the playing field will level out."

Until America understands the problem it will never be able to fix it.

The problem isn't wages. It never has been.

Labor costs are complicated. Far more complicated than just "wages". if you want to stop the bleeding... stop worrying about the wages and start worrying about the real issue.. which is the legal environment.

the difference between 10 cents a day and 20 bucks an hour is literally insignificant on 200 employees when you compare it to the cost of single lawsuit.

Anonymous MendoScot May 26, 2015 7:52 AM  

The pushback continues:

The pattern is clear: Slate's science page has decided to single out Republicans and Christians for scolding, while ignoring the plethora of anti-science beliefs that come from Democrats and (yes, even) atheists. If their goal is to educate the public about science, this is a terrible way to accomplish it.
...
(Photo: "Paris Tuileries Garden Facepalm statue" by Alex E. Proimos via Flickr/Wikimedia Commons)

Blogger Joshua Dyal May 26, 2015 9:26 AM  

While it's useful for identifying Gammas, I've also found it useful for myself, in that if I catch myself starting to use a similar phrase, it means I'm not really confident enough about my point to be making it, so better to shut up and listen instead.

And sometimes it just means exactly what it semantically actually means: that you're making a claim, but allowing for the possible misunderstanding or miscommunication in what you're responding to making your claim potentially moot.

It's not a tell of lack of confidence to be polite and give others the benefit of the doubt. Especially someone to whom you've got reason to give the benefit of the doubt.

Blogger Marissa May 26, 2015 10:26 AM  

There is a persistent myth that America doesn't manufacture anything anymore, but it's not true. The US is the worlds top manufacturer, without a doubt.

America America, or Guam/territories America? I've read about companies that are allowed to use the "made in the U.S.A." label when they are in fact using the same kind of sweatshop labor in Guam as China uses. I assume those same spoilage issues would exist, but I'm curious what amount of U.S. manufacturing is in the contiguous + Hawaii and Alaska "United States".

Blogger bob k. mando May 26, 2015 10:38 AM  

dh May 26, 2015 12:16 AM
For some finished products I source from overseas, we have to building in 18-20% spoilage before shipping problems.



i have a buddy who is a purchaser in the medical prosthesis industry. he had a vendor rep from India show up, who was offering parts at a 50% discount to US manufacturers.

he laughed at the vendor rep and told him that he wouldn't even look at their products for more than 25% of US manufactured cost.

by the time you got done adding up much higher parts failure rates, additional QC required stateside, language / translation difficulties, shipping, more legal liability exposure, etc, dealing with a 3rd world country isn't even worth looking at.



Joshua Dyal May 26, 2015 9:26 AM
It's not a tell of lack of confidence to be polite and give others the benefit of the doubt.


if you want to get finicky, the Gamma Tell is that the Gamma will go on with the argument from his straw man "you seem to be saying ..." and will construct an extensive rebuttal of that rather than verify what was actually meant.

Blogger Joshua Dyal May 26, 2015 10:45 AM  

if you want to get finicky, the Gamma Tell is that the Gamma will go on with the argument from his straw man "you seem to be saying ..." and will construct an extensive rebuttal of that rather than verify what was actually meant.

Exactly. The tell isn't saying, "you seem to be saying." At least, that's not sufficient. I can see much of my own conversation has become less polite over time, as I've exhausted much of my patience for fools. But I do still value polite conversation in venues where I feel like I can engage in it.

Anonymous Ain May 26, 2015 11:56 AM  

"VD is too egotistical to accept that he isn’t the best at everything he does. Scalzi certainly has a healthy ego but he’s got the brains to know that it doesn’t make any sense to spend his time doing something which other people do better"

So Vox and JS came to the same conclusion, Vox because he's an egomaniac and JS because he's just so damned smartical. These people are clowns.

Blogger VD May 26, 2015 1:11 PM  

The tell isn't saying, "you seem to be saying."

No, that is the tell. It merely isn't conclusive proof. It is much better to ASK "are you saying" than TELL "you seem to be saying".

Blogger VD May 26, 2015 1:13 PM  

VD is too egotistical to accept that he isn’t the best at everything he does.

That's why I do all the programming on the games I design. And the art.

Blogger Joshua Dyal May 26, 2015 1:21 PM  

No, that is the tell. It merely isn't conclusive proof. It is much better to ASK "are you saying" than TELL "you seem to be saying".

Fine, yes I'll accept that correction.

Anonymous Freddy May 26, 2015 1:44 PM  

Bird, Jordan?

Why not Steph Curry?

Post a Comment

Rules of the blog
Please do not comment as "Anonymous". Comments by "Anonymous" will be spammed.

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts