Or corporations and Wall Street were willing to accept lower profits.
Outsourcing didn't happen because business executives felt some altruistic urge to lower prices for consumers. What they wanted were lower costs and fatter margins. Low prices were just a marketing gimmick.
It's because they keep dumbing the kids down on purpose so they can control them.
This has gone on for a whole generation now.
Common core most certainly doesn't help.
aka "Dumbthemdown101"
I think someone got an extra dose of the dumbing formula...
Any sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice.
Its fairly obvious that there's malice involved. Look at the huge campaign contributions that are received from the high tech firms. Look at the huge push we see every year for "immigration reform" which is basically code-word for making more American engineers and scientists unemployed by importing foreigners to take their place.
The high tech lobby paints immigration reform as a way of accelerating economic growth. Yet the high tech sector has seen minimal growth since the 2000 tech bubble apex, despite over 1 million H-1B guest workers. Adding more guest workers is not the answer -- but deporting them and forcing firms to consider the US labor pool probably is.
Someone else not looking after your interests does not make them malicious.
Except we're supposed to live in a Representative Democracy, which means they work for us, not us for them. Additionally a Constitutional Republic places a gate with limits around the Federal Govt., not us.
I can only speak for organic chemistry, but I can't think of a single significant innovation to come out of a Chinese lab with regards to chemistry. They publish a lot of papers, and in my estimation, that's what a lot of these predictions stem from: people do a survey of the number of papers published by chemists from one nation or the other, and base their conclusions on that. There's plenty of papers that come out of both India and China, but the consensus when I was in active research was that following a prep from either country should be taken with a grain of salt. Papers from Japan and Germany are generally bulletproof, papers from the US are usually pretty good, all the rest are suspect.
When was the last time a Chinese or Indian scientist won a Nobel Prize?
If they don't, what are you going to do about it?
You didn't address my question. What mandates, regulations and taxes would you get rid of and why?
Or corporations and Wall Street were willing to accept lower profits.
Outsourcing didn't happen because business executives felt some altruistic urge to lower prices for consumers. What they wanted were lower costs and fatter margins. Low prices were just icing on the cake.
While we were busy daydreaming, sleeping and watching the Kardashians....
Chinese military officers charged with hacking western Pennsylvania companies (Video)
http://www.bizjournals.com/pittsbur...y-officers-charged-with-hacking.html?page=all
Which Companies Benefited From China's Hack Attacks?
http://www.businessweek.com/article...-suggests-top-chinese-firms-baosteel-chinalco
Under the new math, I suppose those stolen trade secrets simply means/has meant cheaper steel and power plants. What has the current Administration done so far? absolutely nothing.
http://www.wired.com/2013/12/nsa-cisco-huawei-china/
http://www.forbes.com/sites/kenrapo...ties-mobile-phones-snowden-tells-china-press/
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/23/w...d-chinese-servers-seen-as-spy-peril.html?_r=0
http://gizmodo.com/how-america-is-fighting-back-against-chinese-hackers-754599685
I've been voting with my wallet and living a more meager lifestyle, even if I can afford otherwise, as not to front this current doomsday scenario. At least, I'll be somewhat in front of the eight ball.
Voting does virtually nothing to place power back into your own hands.
Nevermind the global trade deals done that would of put US businesses at a significant disadvantage in the global marketplace.
So...basically nothing.
Which means, you're not living in a democracy. Because in a democracy, if the public doesn't like what the government does, the public does something about it. If the public doesn't, or can't, enact change by force against the wishes of the government, it's not a democracy.
Your biggest failing is assuming that what you're doing is actually worth a shit. You're not going to change things by quietly going about your business. Even if what you did had any actual effect on affairs. Which it most likely doesn't.It's only nothing without others following suit, perhaps millions. Can't fault me for trying.
But yeah... so far virtually nothing. Though we do have the Internet to freely disseminate relevant information.
As with all other forms of governance, a successful democracy is predicated on an educated populace with well-meaning, educated leaders. If you had an autocracy you'd be the last days of the Julio-Claudian dynasty. If you had a monarchy you'd be Kaiser Wilhelm II. If America were ruled by a direct democracy, or a monarchy, or a dictator, it would be no more broken than it currently is. Maybe even less.Although, you might want to read up on the perils of a direct or pure democracy. It's the difference between mob rule and a constitutional form of govt. The US is actually a republic implementing a Representative Democracy, a Constitutional Republic if you will.
All the brains in the world mean nothing if your people lack the will to innovate. Just as how the Iraqi lack the will to fight for freedom. Let us know when the other worlds countries starts picking up on those qualities.
Your biggest failing is assuming that what you're doing is actually worth a shit. You're not going to change things by quietly going about your business. Even if what you did had any actual effect on affairs. Which it most likely doesn't.
TL; DR - if you want to make the world a better place take a look at yourself and then make a change.
If you wanted to change something, you'd be telling other people to change. Not living your own life with everyone else oblivious of what you're doing.Ok, but what you are doing is called playing from both sides... and then cutting down the middle.
You're telling me what I'm doing isn't overall worth a shit (oh, and I agree, btw.) Then quoting Michael Jackson from Man In the Mirror, telling me to make a change, which is what I'm doing by staying informed and voting with my wallet. Although I actually have used this fundamental information (regarding the US's rarely discussed financial underpinnings) to my advantage.
If my posts make just one person read the articles or information presented, then that social change is being affected, in a rather slow way. Still better than nothing.
If you wanted to change something, you'd be telling other people to change. Not living your own life with everyone else oblivious of what you're doing.
This is like what all those weird Christians do with Facebook prayers. Basically, you're saying this stuff because you want others to know that you're not a sheep. But you don't really want to do anything about it.
Is this some kind of New Age bullshit designed to make everyone feel better about their apathetic failure? No change and little change are not the only two options.