I laughed, I cried and cried a little harder.  Then I laughed again.  I felt bad for laughing once more so I got a beer.  It didn't help.  Maybe a hamburger then...

Oh, on another note, we can safely cut outsourcing down to nothing if this world had it's shit together, but it won't happen for a long time.  Until then, we shall enjoy our slave labor products and turn the other cheek.

Want to create jobs? Easy, two options. One destroy labour regulation getting rid of pesky things like minimum wage and making it hard to fire people all that stuff that we as employees love. Or you can make sure you as a country only import from countries that treat their workers right i.e. not from china. or put heavy tariffs on imports. Yes you will have to pay more for the products and you will complain and say give the jobs back to china and ignore the growing poverty around you. Once it is cheaper to manufacture in your own country than it is to import you will create jobs in your own country.

Yeah I know its not that simple.

On a side note, this is why the US should not be worried about china, there business model is not sustainable though neither is the US but whatever. I would imagine that some time in the next 10 to twenty years there is going to be a lot of trouble unless labour policy improves. Which will make it more expensive to create things there which will make china a less attractive place to manufacture your product. I cannot imagine the people of china will put up with that forever.

Well, if you reduce the corporate tax and the capital gains tax, it would make it cheaper for corporations and small businesses to have facilities (and jobs) located here...

Of course, it'd probably still be cheaper to manufacture in China...

Wait, is the information about that foxconn factory accurate?

I was thinking more along the lines of massive spending cuts. That way you could offer tax breaks and still not go into debt. Of course, since the US is already in massive debt, the spending cuts would have to be incredibly large. Unfortunately, it's very difficult for both parties to agree even on small spending cuts...

I would stop all the overseas wars, close all the overseas military bases, cut military spending on the research and development of new weapons, end the war on drugs, get rid of the federal department of education, repeal any and all subsidies for businesses, stop all government foreign aid, get rid of the Transportation and Security Administration, get rid of the Department of Homeland Security, get rid of the Federal Reserve, repeal the Patriot Act, repeal the laws banning "assault weapons", extended clips, and specialized ammo, and probably much more...

Wait, what country do you live in?

 and if you get a job in China you want to commit suicide, literally

impossible to compete at that level

The alternative is to stop dicking around on this fucking Earth and get it together.  If people didn't have this instant-gratification mentality and a "gimme gimme gimme, I need that RIGHT THE FUCK NOW OR I'LL DIE!!!!!!" mind set, we wouldn't have the kind of slavery we have across the globe.  Companies want money, they care nothing about people's lives and want to keep the population with THEIR products as quickly and with as many "faults" as possible so that they can keep employing people to update THOSE problems, then employ other people to improve on those problems so that there are seemingly LESS problems, but in fact, there are MORE problems because the NEW shit has even MORE problems than the last product.  It's all a giant wheel of nonsense. 

Those workers would starve to death anyway employed or not.  Hell, if they don't, they'd just off themselves.  We're doing them a favor by paying them to be slaves?  How dangerously, absurdly, irresponsibly, horrifyingly disgusting.

Well, TECHNICALLY, those that work aren't slaves because they get paid for labor and have a roof over their heads, but still feel like they're working for no cause and spinning a hamster wheel; that can be said for just about anything in life if you put it in the right context.  The way these people work vs. the consequences of not working keep them in a life of servitude rather than no life at all.  The trade-off is still the same; an awful, criminal way of living and being treated.  As for the one child policy, you are correct; overpopulating on top of scarcity creates such shitty living for the majority of the populace in China and imposes strict guidelines for people wanting children.  The major problem is unless scarcity is ended there and in other heavily populated pockets of the world, this will extend everywhere, not just America, in due time.   

Hmm, so what could be done to make starting a small business cheaper and easier?

Hmm, getting rid of regulations would certainly help. Of course, it would probably be rather difficult to get the necessary amount of support: a lot of people in the US underestimate the ability of non-governmental entities to keep them safe. Still, I imagine there are some very costly and ineffective regulations that lots of people would be okay with eliminating: the SOPA and PIPA bills, for example.

How very European of you. In the US 8% unemployment being viewed as too high has swung presidential elections. Americans get alarmed at 7% unemployment. It has to be explained to Americans 0% is not desirable.

The unadmitted purpose of regulations is to increase the threshold for competition to get into the business. I talked with a man who managed the opening of a new store in a drug store chain. His budget for what was essentially permits and regulatory compliance was $120,000 in 1983 in Northern Virginia suburb of DC. His brag was being one of the few who had ever done it under budget and on schedule.

Lease and stock can be largely recovered. Renovation is maybe half recoverable. Compliance is a sunk cost. The costs are the same for competition to the chain. That is a huge unrecoverable addition to the cost of getting into the business.

South Korea immediately spring to mind. But not every US asset is critical to world peace.
The American contribution to a few local economies is also not the awesome you suggest. First, you're draining your own economy by stationing and maintaining bases anywhere outside your own country, for little benefit. You can't tell me there's any need or use for bases in Germany today, for example.
Second, it's not the boon for the locals you suggest either. Populations tend to go where the jobs are. Leave and the communities will simply move as surely as did all those that moved after the gold rush ended, and leave ghost towns like you can find in B.C.
It's a unsustainable outside source of income that can and will pick up and leave the moment the US can't afford to remain, and/or has no further reason to.
Best case scenario is that Japan itself occupies the base thereafter, but either way the presence isn't permanent, and eventually all the people there will find themselves in a dire position when

You just made me want to close overseas bases even more. There are so many better things all that money could be spent on--like R&D for drones so that we can shrink our military.

Of course not. However, you seem to be under the assumption that we need them at all--every dollar spent on defense is a dollar that cannot be spent on anything else. 

You are preaching to the choir. I assume Canadians are familiar with that American expression.

The economic contributions to the countries they are in is not that much. The contribution to the part of the country they are in is important. There is no industry around Ramstein AFB in Germany. Okinawa is farming and fishing except for the US base. Yes, of course people can and will move on. And if it had only lasted a few years or maybe a decade but in those places we are talking third generation making a living off the bases. And there are a lot of them and they vote. The local and national governments want them to stay. I can think of three bases of value, Ramstein, Pireaus and Rota. It is a matter of forward positioning and rapid response IF we politically required preparation for certain conditions.

A few decades back the Philippines got on a high horse about a US base otherwise in the middle of no where called Subic Bay. To get there from civilization by land you had to travel through communist held territory. (A dirty little secret not found in the travel brochures even today. The Spanish-American war insurgency is still going on.) They demanded ten times what it was worth to renew the lease. The US continued negotiations and prepared to leave. Then a volcano buried the base under a meter of ash. Needless to say negotiations ended. It expanded Okinawa to make up for it. A base is worth no more than its replacement cost.

As to the choir, not my problem. Let them solve their own problems including South Korea. And if the North retakes the South that just reduces some of the competition for US products. And if China retakes Taiwan and a chunk of Japan, I'd rather deal with China than countries that can't carry their own weight. But rest assured there will be whiners selling war just as they did over Poland the last time around. Just like there war whiners today pushing for war on Iran because of the poor, nuclear armed Jews and their ICBMS.

Speaking of last time around, that WWII thing, remember when the whole damned world demanded the US save its ass. At least one participant here is pissed the US did not act quick enough to save the poor Brits from themselves. Remember the US spent huge amounts of its own money over four years to go from a pissant military to one that could do something? Am I misreading the audience to observe even eternal gratitude doesn't last forever? Am I also misreading the castigation for not acting sooner? One could wish the critics of the US would decide which way they want it.

It is not possible to be ready to save the world and have a second rate military at the same time.

Here is a dirty little secret. With the Vietnam war the US would have had a military with no combat experience by 1975. A military without combat experience isn't ever prepared for the last war. It would have been unprepared for the first Gulf war. Iraq would still hold Kuwait and salaam to Hussein. There would most certainly have been another Iran/Iraq war either before or after Iraq took the Saudi oil fields, probably after. Without the combat experience of Vietnam and readiness it could not have been prevented -- even I am skeptical of any projection beyond holding and keeping Kuwait. In any event the lack combat experience since 1973 is why Hezbollah kicked Israel's butt in its last invasion of Lebanon.

Readiness costs money. Practice wars cost money.

Another factor is if the US stops covering for the military needs of other countries they will do it themselves. Like Canada always screwing its military because it could hide behind the US, without the US in the Cold War (you do not want to violate your principles with a Cold War exception do you?) Western Europe would have had to militarize else involuntarily learn to speak Russian. As long as the US maintains is effectiveness level and global reach there is no vacuum to fill. I do not see that as all that important as it would take years of military growth to make a difference and that should be plenty of warning. However politicians make these decisions and they know political inertia in years. Perhaps they are correct.

While the choir is listening it does not have a seat in congress.

Let me pose a problem. Does not increasing military R&D decrease the available talent for civilian R&D? New products and new profits? And does that not reduce the taxes to pay for military R&D? How much military R&D is not too much?

I am under the impression that the politicians have laid requirements on the military for the number of wars and readiness to fight them. Until those are changed what you see is a modest optimization attempting to satisfy of the law.

Let me show  you how bad it is. I will premise this with the hopefully outrageous statement that the US never at any time doubted it would win WWII and any claim to the contrary was a propaganda lie.

My evidence is quite simple and obvious. A country that feared losing would have optimized the dollars spent. Instead the US spread war dollars all over the country opening military bases for no reason other than Congressional districts getting a share of the money. For 40 years after the war it was essentially impossible to close any of them even the most redundant and worthless solely for political resistance. The same thing happend with war materiel contracts.

The US had an incredible number of difference aircraft. That was not because they were needed but because contracts had to be parcelled out to congressional districts. The money had to be spread around. Even when there was some kind of standardization such as in combat rifles, it is the rare collector who has one from every company that made them. Why not one or two huge factories producing them as cheaply as possible? The money had to be spread around to congressional districts. If a state had a sea coast it had a naval base -- the more coast line the more bases. Mare Island in Alameda was still around when they made the fifth Startrek movie. I think the one in Long Beach is closed leaving only the pre-war one in San Diego  for California at least. There is still one at Puget Sound, Washington. Matter of fact even sea coast was not a requirement as there was one on Lake Erie. It might still be there.

Have I established the validity of the outrageous statement? If winning was in question the inefficient and often deadly in the case of shitty aircraft spreading around the money could not have been tolerated. All those war bond drives? BS! They were to raise more money to spread around. And the Americans all eager to kill Japs and Krauts and save the world? 94% of them were drafted. Obviously the people didn't feel threatened either.

 I have a question for you guys regarding the subject, I found it interesting because I find reasonable and honorable points on both sides.  The issue and argument came up on "Shark Tank" last night.  One entrepneur created a fold down truck rack that fits 95% of pickup trucks, a clearly well built and designed product.  His goal was to manufacture the product locally in his economically strained town somewhere in North Carolina.   It was clear his goal was more to bring jobs to "his" people, than to make a succesfull business.  It was pointed out that at his current price point of $250 cost per unit was too high, distributors could only buy the product for $320 if they were to resell at a competetive price and still profit themselves.  So for the business to succeed (atleast at first) he MUST outsource the manufacturing, and get the price per unit cost down to $150, just under half of what they would be sold for, a mark all investors look for in a company (if you cant sell your product for atleast double of what it costs to make, your business will most likely fail, or just stay stagnant).  This man refused to outsource the work as he found his venture to be honorable only if he brought jobs to "his" people, this certainly seems like an honorable position. 

   But it was pointed out by one of the investors, that all people should be "his" people, and he needs to think of the world more as a global economy, and that the people who would manufacture his product overseas all have children to feed and mortgages to pay aswell, and we are all ofcourse immigrants from other countries down the line.  Also it was pointed out "who can you help if your business fails with your current model, imagine how many you could help if your business was doing 5 million a year."  And also "you help the business first, grow it and make it successful, then with the new influence and resources you have find a way to bring jobs to your locals.  Marketing, accounting, sales, etc... You would need to hire a lot of locals for such a large company, and maybe in the future with enough buying power you could find a way to maybe one day bring the manufacturing home now that you are producing tens of thousands of units."

So what are your opigions, who is correct and who is not?  The investors were all out although they loved the guy, his passion, and his product, they could not get past the fact he was so stubborn on the outsourcing part in the business' startup.   He would not budge, and they simply would not invest in a company that manufactures a product for $250 and sells it for $320, because they know it is a doomed model.  And just to clarify, they were ofcourse talking about getting product manufactured ethically from reputable overseas companies that aren't paying 7 year olds 50c a day, they were not talking about slave labour here, just a company that can simply produce a product for less but are not local. 

Both nations assemble multiple teams to face off with other teams. America has many more teams than Canada during the games. Generally Americans will face Americans more often than Canadians simply because of the numbers.
It's not like we always win either, we just tend to have a higher win ratio.

I don't have a link off hand. It tends to be common knowledge here and in military circles though, so it shouldn't be hard to find one.

stand by, too many open windows...

There is a nugget of truth in that, but none of us were prepared for WWI or WWII, and we still won. You don't need to have first hand experience to be combat capable. You would've rolled over Hussein without Vietnam. The Gulf war was a joke. 956,600 to 650,000 soldiers. Approx 3,000 casualties to 100,000. That's not a war, that's shooting fish in a barrel with a cannon.
The last real war the US participated in was Vietnam. Approx 1.8 million casualties on both sides. And even that war was overseas. You haven't faced an enemy on your own soil in more than a century. A real threat to the US would be capable of actually seizing territory. How are the puny wars since Vietnam preparing the US for a real threat?

The fact is that these wars have been the result of destabilising influences that the US often introduced in the first place. Some were thanks to the previous world powers (Britain, France, etc.), but most of the conflict in the last 40 years has a distinct

Not exactly accurate. That's a counter to the claim that the US is starting shit in the Middle East supposedly in the name of freedom when Africa is in much worse shape than the Middle East. Most of us know it's for the oil. But some bought the propoganda and thus think the logical next step is to liberate swaths of Africa. But Africa has no oil, and no likely threat of nuclear capability, and would be an actual war, so the US has no interest. In your defence, noone else is rushing in either. Noone really even wants to talk about it, let alone have to actually get bloody.

NATO. A whole new topic. I don't even feel like getting into it really. My gaming is being delayed. But suffice to say NATO is not the kind of thing I'm referring to. You notice that a number of countries can't or won't join? That's because

Wait, what is this law called? Or, rather, do you know where I could find a copy of the text?

At the college I go to, I'm part of a libertarian political group that, among other things, is quite anti-war. I'm sure everyone in the group would be quite interested in this law (if they don't already know about it) and they may even be able to do something to change it. Of course, even if they can't, the more people aware of this law, the better.

No kidding, the only nation that is a threat to world peace is the US. I could be wrong, but I know of no other countries currently engaged in international wars.

It is inaccurate to refer to a nation as "you". The government that rules a piece of land and the people who live on that are completely different, even in a democracy. That said, it is at least partially correct to say "you" when referring to dependence on foreign oil, since pretty much everyone in the US uses oil. However, while the actions of the US government clearly favor drug criminalization and foreign wars, I, a US citizen, am quite against both these things. In addition, there are probably a number in of people in every level of government in the US that are also against these things.

The problem, I think, is that people are so sure of their "good ideas" that they don't think anyone reasonable could possibly think otherwise. So, they pass these ideas into law...and label "unreasonable" anyone who objects to them. I know am guilty of this too, which is why I spread my ideas by explaining them to others, rather than by passing them into law.

   Sorry for the duplicates posts but the connection would keep timing out every time I clicked "post comment".   Most frustrating !!!

       Then Canada should immediately disentangle itself from any alliances with the US once and for all.

         If Canada truly is a military juggernaut why wouldn't your government just politely say "no thanks" and go it alone ?

  Now you sound just like Watcher who personally believes that the US military has never been "defeated" or even could be.   Like him, you are just spewing a lot of patriotic bluster and delusional thinking.   And unlike Watcher I fully acknowledge limited US military weaknesses and yet despite our vulnerabilities the US military is still vastly more powerful than Canada's, and I'm speaking of purely conventional military forces.  No offense but Canada's "capabilities" would be utterly overwhelmed. 

       Check out this Vastet....          http://www.GlobalFirepower.com    Canada ranks 25'th as a world military power.  Even Brazil eclipses Canada in military might.   Even tiny Israel exceeds Canada in conventional military strength.    Sorry dude, Canada would be like a vicious toy poodle nipping at our ankles and would be easily swatted away.  I'm just being realistic based upon the facts.  And remember, I don't have anything against your government or your military.  I think of Canada in much more kindly terms than you do my country.

How quickly can Canadian industry build a sufficiently powerful military if you were suddenly attacked by an enemy ( like the US military ? ) who already has their military strong enough to defeat you ?  Do you call for a "time out" so you can go tool up your arms industry and try and make up the difference ?  Even the Romans knew better that you..... "If you want peace, prepare for war."    Here's another appropriate adage for your military  "He who hesitates is lost".

The only thing I can be sure of is that if there ever is a WW3 the real threat will be thousands of nuclear tipped mirvs falling from the skies.  That means whatever is underneath it just gets melted and burned.  I die, you die, we all die.

I did make an effort not to do that, but by the end I just wanted to play a game so I rushed a bit.

Yes. Britain effectively said "how high" when the US jumped. Australia has joined the US in every war since WW2 so far as I know. Even Canada joined in later, thanks to a new right wing nut Prime Minister. I wouldn't assign culpability to 2nd/3rd world nations that didn't actually contribute significant resources though. The most powerful nation on Earth said you're with or against us. And there aren't more than a couple countries who could laugh that off. Even those who could are hardly in a position to actively oppose the US.

Sweet.

I never said otherwise. But we'd make it hurt more than you've been hurt since Vietnam, and you're delusional if you think otherwise.

And how well could you defend yourself against us with more than half your military overseas? We'd take DC overnight while you were rushing to bring troops home.

The fact is we went from practically no military to having one of the ten biggest armies in the world in less than a year. It took 3 months to get troops into Europe. What did the US do for four years?