Ikenson on Obama

Is Obama (a) economically illiterate; (b) dishonest, or; (c) naïve. The answer is (d), all of the above.

The answer is (d), he's a politician.

Reminds me of "I did not have sexual intercourse with that woman." I don't know about the rest of humanity, but "blow job" was the first thing that entered my mind when I heard this statement. If he could have said "I've never so much as kissed her," then he certainly would have. If says he didn't have sexual intercourse with her, he's saying he did everything short of that; otherwise, he just keeps his mouth shut about it.

And the same logic applies to the drumbeat of reporting of Obama's rhetorical outrages here and the deafening silence on McCain. Neither Obama nor Clinton are about to withdraw from NAFTA.

Clinton's talk of "labor and environmental standards" is laughable, since Canada is typically suing us over environmental standards (or U.S. companies sue over the imposition of Canadian standards). If anyone were about to withdraw from the treaty over these issues, it's Canada. They'll jump at whatever she offers, so there's not the slightest chance of a withdrawal.

And when Clinton or Obama or McCain turn NAFTA into an international regulatory regime even more than it already is (like that wasn't inevitable from the outset), half of the the proponents of globalization will cheer while the other half keep maneuvering for their own preferred regulations.

Interesting insight Martin - seems to be backed up by a recent posting from the Canada National Post.

is 'begs the question' no longer worth complaining about when it's used as a substitute for 'raises the question'?

are we just to move on past that?

Good point, Martin. Sweet B.J. Clinton, eh?

"are we just to move on past that?"

Sigh. I'm afraid we're very close to that point.

Uh, Clinton didn't say,"I did not have sexual intercourse with that woman..."

Clinton DID say, "I did not have sexual relations with that woman..."

Big difference. The first might have been the truth. The second proved to be a lie not much different than, "I never so much as kissed her".

Actually, "I never so much as kissed her" might have been true as well.

Martin, you should have been a Clinton speech writer :p

Maybe Dan Ikenson should be asking himself the same questions:

Is Dan (a) a journalistic illiterate; (b) dishonest, or; (c) naïve. Or is he all of the above?




Canada Says TV Story on Obama NAFTA Deception is 'Untrue'

"I can categorically say that no one has contacted our embassy or our ambassador," said Canadian Foreign Ministry spokesman Andre Lemay. "None of our officials at the embassy discussed anything with the runners up in the presidential campaign. We realize that one of the Canadian networks mentioned yesterday that such a call had been made. The report is untrue."

Man the anti-competition Pro-Multi-national Corporate Rule forces are out to get Barak.

At the rate Ikenson is going, I wonder if he'll make it to Jacksonville.

This pales in comparison to the GOP's broken promises about limited government and budget cuts.

Plus, choosing among deceits, I'd rather have someone promise to do the wrong policy and actually implement the right one than vice versa.

Yes, I'm jaded.

Clinton DID say, "I did not have sexual relations with that woman..."

So call my lawyer.

Back channel messages are hardly new to politics.

Nor is inflamed rhetoric a few days before an election.

None of these candidates are worthy of the office, we can only hope the winner grows into it.

rustbelt:

All the backchannel stuff works because the dreamy-eyed Obamaniacs don't know it's going on. I wonder if they knew?

muirego --

The Canadians met with Goolsbee:

http://www.slate.com/id/2185753/entry/2185754/

Not a big deal either way, but the memo is interesting.

My wife just returned from China. We talked about how cheap stuff was. In general something made there would cost as little as 1/5th to 1/10th what it cost here. I told her she should have bought some cheap iPods. She told me the $40 dollar version cost $80.

You supporters of "Free trade" and attackers of Obama....PLEASE explain!!!!

Explain what? Does that contradict free trade somehow?

Well, muirgeo, the iPhone is made in China, transported to the U.S., and a fairly significant portion is smuggled back into China because of demand there and people pay more for them than buyers in the U.S.

So what about it?

Calling Martin Brock's lawyer! Calling Martin Brock's lawyer!

Please explain? Heh heh heh. (An in-joke only Aussies understand XP)

I didn't look at iPods while in China, but according to Apple.com the cheapest model for sale in the US is $49. In Europe however, the same model costs about $75 (French Apple Store).

As another example, Canon charges US customers much less for its products than it charges Canadian or Australian or Europeans. About a year ago I heard of someone who flew from Europe to buy top-end Canon camera equipment in the US. The cost of the airfare and hotel stay was less than the cost difference for the 1DsII.

To China specifically, prices are mostly set similar to how they are here - by Supply and Demand. The control economy has pretty much ended. I've spent over a month there and it is very interesting the sort of pricing you see. Non-name brand stuff is dirt cheap. Food is cheap. Chinese stuff made for Chinese is cheap. But Sony, Apple, Canon, Polo, Coach, and even Tupperware are similarly priced there as here - sometimes a bit less, sometimes quite a bit more.

In short, it probably has little to do with Free Trade. In fact, without Free Trade, the iPod would have certainly been more expensive for them.

I'm sure Obama will solve the problem - if he can find the problem.

http://www.apple.com.cn/store/srp/ipod.html#ipodshuffle

Says they are 428 RMB. Current exchange rate is about 7.106. So that is just above $60. Perhaps your wife was at a store that marked up their items above what Apple states on their own Chinese web-site.

Let Obama know which store your wife saw with such high markups. Obama will be audacious enough to bring hope to potential buyers.

Does China have 1 person per square meter? Just curious. Soon right?

Hope and change. Change and hope.

Hope and change. Change and hope.


Hope and change. Change and hope.


Hope and change. Change and hope.

Repeat another 1000 times.

That's the Obama campaign.

"Man the anti-competition Pro-Multi-national Corporate Rule forces are out to get Barak."

I don't think the protectionists are out to get him at all.

Man, the anti-competition, Pro-Multi-national Corporate Rule forces are out to get Barack.

Barack is a "big government" kinda guy, which always means taking decisions away from individuals and passing them onto politicians and bereaucrats. Big businesses fear individual decision-making, because people might decide to stop buying their products. If the millions of individual decisions can be transferred to a relatively small collection of politicians and beareaucrats, then the problem is solved by corrupting the system with big businesses big money. In other words, "persuading" politicians and bereaucrats, who are now making decisions on behalf of millions of individuals, to decide in favour of big business. That is what you fear, is it not?

If decisions are decentralised, with each individual left free to make his own, then corrupting the decision-makers becomes impossible, and big business can serve its interests better in other ways; namely, by selling products and services at a compromise of quality and price which consumers prefer to competitors.

tariffs are a big reason for international price differences. Poor, dear Obama wants more of them to facilitate hope and change and change and hope. A $20K car costs $40K in Egypt because the tariff on cars is 100%.

I second Python's observation. I noticed the same thing in the Philippines a couple years ago. If it was name-brand electronics, it was equal if not more than US prices. off-brand items, food and health/beauty items and housing were dirt cheap.

We also have to consider that businesses will leverage price discrimination as well. Adobe just caught flack last year for selling the UK version of their CS software suite for a few hundred more dollars in the UK than the US.

Python, I love your posts. You speak fluent sarcasm.

Warranties are also a big part of price differentials. You can often buy the same camera for different prices becuase one has a U.S. 1 year warranty, and a Japanese version may have a 3 month warranty.

We also have to consider that businesses will leverage price discrimination as well. Adobe just caught flack last year for selling the UK version of their CS software suite for a few hundred more dollars in the UK than the US.

Posted by: colson | Mar 5, 2008 11:08:11 AM

Adobe can charge whatever they want for their product. The consumers are free to decline.

muirgeo:

Physical fallacy. No further explanation should be needed. You're welcome.

Obama will be audacious enough to bring hope to potential buyers.

I just love Obama -- enough so that I get all weak-kneed and feel like fainting when he speaks of change and how it will be good for us. Except climate change, of course.

"Adobe can charge whatever they want for their product. The consumers are free to decline."

I agree whole heartedly. I should hesitate to use the word "discrimination" lest anyone get the wrong impression. I largely meant it in the business neutral sense of the word rather than implying any intention of nefarious deeds.

Now, Adobe and Microsoft must face the PR consequences of their pricing schemes for things like site licenses. Sooner or later, open source software(OSS) will provide alternate solutions, but that's the free market at work. Freedom to fail.

Now that the primaries are the entire State of Ohio is covered with manure three feet deep. Everyone can become a mushroom farmer.

Both parties are owned by Wall Street, and Wall Street benefits when real wages are depressed and jobs are offshored.

Not to worry, it is all talk, no action.

and Wall Street benefits when real wages are depressed and jobs are offshored.

Instead of repeating headlines written by extraordinarily ignorant journalists why don't you do something useful:

1.)Define "Wall Street"

2.)explain how this "Wall Street" benefits if the entire economy doesn't

My bet is that, like muirduck, you won't step up to the challenge but I'm hoping you prove me wrong.

Methinks:

Perhaps what he thinks is that Wall Street represents just a few large corporations whose short-term profits can go up via off shoring and overall reduced labor costs which means increased dividends for shareholders. At least that's the theory.

Freedomlover,

If that's his definition of "Wall Street", then he's bathing in the same sea of ignorance as the journalists. I won't jump to that conclusion and await a response.

...even if there isn't a response, could you expand on your post, methinks? to my ignorance-bathed opinion, I could see how what Freedomlover said would make sense, and the notion that a company could profit by depressing wages and offshoring to cheaper locales also seems to fit.

Of course, competition would drastically affect how widespread that could be, but...

Shawn,

First of all, this is Freedomlover's guess of what Rustbelt thinks. I hesitate to attribute this sloppy thinking to Freedomlover himself.

1.)Nothing in Freedomlover's statement had anything to do with Wall Street.

2.)Wall Street represents just a few large corporations

Wall Street does not represent anything of the sort.

...whose short-term profits can go up via off shoring and overall reduced labor costs which means increased dividends for shareholders.

This is truly meaningless. Since companies are valued on a going concern basis, short term, unsustainable pops in profits are heavily discounted. Not all companies pay dividends and large profits do not translate into higher dividends even for companies that do pay dividends. Especially in the case of companies which are still young and growing, it is far better to retain profits and invest in high return opportunities.

the notion that a company could profit by depressing wages and offshoring to cheaper locales also seems to fit.

While it is generally true that, all else held constant, if a company can reduce its labour costs, it can increase its profit, it is wrong to assume that a company has any control over wages. So, a company cannot "profit by depressing wages" because an employer is a price-taker in the labour market - it can depress nothing. In fact, it is the very fact that employers are price takers that drives them out of expensive labour markets and into cheaper ones.

In any case, none of this has anything to do with Wall Street. Nor is cost saving behaviour restricted to large corporations.

Further, if a company can save on labour costs and become more profitable that way, it is a net positive to the economy - including the labour market. Making a larger profit means that a company has more money to either return to its shareholders to invest or to invest in new ventures. New ventures require more employees. Employment, wages and investment are inexorably linked.

In any case, none of this has anything to do with "Wall Street".

thank you so much for taking the time to write that out. Learning gets me excited...glad you could contribute.

Methinks:

I think liberals are concerned with the extra profit just going straight to the fat cats on the board of directors and NOT into reinvesting new machinery and plants.

Freedomlover,

I think liberals are concerned that anybody 1.) makes a profit at all, 2.) makes it without their permission 3.) makes a profit and happens to be guilty of being a white male 4.) does or thinks anything at all without their approval

For example...liberals can't stand a white racists, but if a black person is racist then it's "understandable" or not racist at all because the definition of "racist" changes depending on the colour of your skin. So if you are a black racist paying a visit to "hymie town", that's okay. But if you are white and don't happen to be an Oprah Winfrey fan, then that's just intolerable.

Shawn,

I'm glad you liked that.

Basically, Wall Street firms like Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs provide a variety of services for all kinds of companies all over the world. Thus, Wall Street firms benefits when there is a lot of economic activity. However, WS firms have no control over the strategic decisions of the companies we trade, underwrite, etc.

I remember when WorldCom's accounting fraud was discovered, the papers labeled it "another Wall Street scandal". I was on Wall Street at the time and I was an analyst covering WorldCom for a Wall Street instituion. Scott Sullivan of WorldCom spent a great deal of time lying to my face and suspiciously never being able to come up with the numbers that would reconcile my model WorldCom's releases. The scandal happened at WorldCom. Wall Street had nothing to do with it.

If it's corporate welfare Rustbelt is talking about, then let's call it what it is. But we have to remember that politicians sell themselves to Wall Street, Main Street and Welfare Avenue. They create the rents, it would be irrational for people not to seek them.