Gillipig wrote:That was a long post, and a bit of a history lesson, maybe I missed it, but I don't see how you answered my concern, which was bringing back jobs.
My specific response was to your comment that Americans idolize the free market, a continuation of my earlier comment that a lot of people, particularly politicians, claim to idolize free market principles but don't understand what it really means or their limits. Politicians, in particular (and I would put Bachmann squarely in this category) use that as a kind of cover of cronyism.
(I also note that I exclude BBS from that "don't understand"bit -- I disagree with him on the signficiance of ecnomic parameters compared with base data parameters. I don't really disagree with his economic understanding, its that I say its irrelevant without understanding the environment, the externalities.)
Gillipig wrote:You talked about information control, and that people make uninformed decision based on what they read on the internet. Can you give concrete examples of what type of decisions you are referring to?
Making good decisions on anything means getting good information. That is part of why we have truth in advertising rules, just as an example (limited though they may be). Also, to have options, you have to have awareness of options. The internet can interferre with both of those.
However, I was referring more to big ideas people have about economics and politics. So many people today lack what I call very basic information about how our world works that they make flawed decisions on what is and is not important.
I will go back to an old example to illustrate what I mean. I remember seeing protests in favor of legaizing marihuana in my college town, also in a heavy timber town. They had all kinds of signs touting morality, Christianity, etc as why they opposed marihuana legalization. I glanced at the protestors, more or less expecting to see at least some of the people I knew to be in the more conservative church groups. I saw not one person I recognized. These were not "church" people. That is, they probably went to one church or another, but they were not heavily active in advocating there. These were all employees of the big Louisiana Pacific Lumber Mill, and they were being paid to protest. The company exec might pretend all he wants he was just supporting "good Christian values" --- certainly press releases said as much. The real truth was that hemp production (hemp being a form of marihuana, essentially) presented a huge threat to the use of timber for paper. The people were protesting, not because they had religious or moral outrage, but because they wanted to keep working. Yet... that fact was mentioned only as a minor sideline in news reports, if at all. Then, when they went to the counter protest, they did not show the stands with bioengineering students or clothing stands. They showed a couple of, well, rather unkempt individuals laughing about getting high.
Gillipig wrote:You mentioned evolution denial and climate change denial, but I fail to see how it's relevant to the general trend of sending production jobs overseas.
I did not relate them directly to that. They were pertinent in the context of Bachmann, the subject of the thread.
Gillipig wrote:I see no reason to blame the ignorance of the general public (not denying that they're ignorant) for the failure of the government to protect jobs. Unless your argument is that people are calling for a free market because they are under the false presumption that it will benefit everyone, and that they formed that opionon by using the internet (but the idea predates the internet and was popular long before it) and the only reason the government isn't protecting jobs is because of what the people want, then I get it. But I wouldn't agree with it of course.
Its more direct than that. Because they lack full understanding or even incentive to understand the impact of their actions on the world at large, the impact their purchase have on pollution world-wide, on jobs in not just their town, but across the country, etc, they make decisions that ignore those impacts.
When the people are otherwise well educated, and the pretense is, say "we don't have to worry abiout the environment because its way off and we have to worry about jobs TODAY", then it gets very destructive, because the real truth is that the environment is not way off, it is today. Or, at least, many solutions have to happen today.
Yes, this happened prior to the internet (my example above was), but the internet makes it much,much worse. Now people have the illusion that they are listening to "all opinions" are "researching", when what they are really doing is looking at the top 10 google finds, w hich are placed there because they are more similar to prior searches. It makes people far more extreme. This used to happen in localities, but not so much across wide areas. There is a fundamental and significant difference between saying "I come from Mississippi and you come from Alaska, naturally we have different concerns" and saying "I have this opinion because I KNOW more than you. and the reason I know more is not because I have a degree or more practical experience, but because I went and saw it on the internet. Worse, this latest bias often happens without people truly being aware of it.
Per the governmetn protecting jobs... I would argue most people believe just the opposite, and that the opposite is largely true. The government, within the US is getting less and less power. Folks like Bachmann want to see it more limited, but I would argue that the real reason is because her interests are protecting not people and jobs, but big business. I am sure she and here supporters justify here ideas otherwise, but that is what I see happening from her policies... weakening of the federal governmetn and promotion of big corporations, often at the expense of smaller ones.
I think MOST of this "throw jobs overseas"-- whether because of wage requirements here or environmental requirements here represents utterly false argument. Its true only on the barest surface, temporarily.
Gillipig wrote:I also do not accept your claim that information control is something that should be encouraged and I refute that the internet has made us less capable of making informed decisions. But instead of going deeper into that I'll just leave it here because I've said what I think was relevant to the topic we're discussing.
I am definitely NOT in favor of information control. I am,however,in favor of assurances that there is distinction between verified true information and opinion. Sure, some people will believe that "everything in National Enquirer is true" -- and in a certain sense, it is partially true (they don't so much outright lie as insinuate and place emphasis where none is really warranted -- Joe looked funny at his wife, maybe they are getting a divorce is not a lie, but its not full truth,either) but most people understand that the Enquirere is entertainment, not true information. On the internet, its very easy to make even very fliimsy and false informaiton appear valid.
Certain limits inherent to print are just not there in the internet.
We are in a kind of time of yellow journalism in the internet. That was limited then because it was harmful to all. Similarly, there is a strong benefit for mechanisms that better ensure people know at least what is truth, what is opinion and what is pure fiction on the internet, similar to what exists in print. Not ideal, not perfect, but better than exists now.
