The Return of Protectionism

[Winehole23]

The Return of Protectionism (http://www.takimag.com/article/the_return_of_protectionism/)
by Patrick J. Buchanan (http://www.takimag.com/blogs/PatrickBuchanan) on September 15, 2009


http://www.takimag.com/images/gallery/Manufacturing_med.jpg

Down at the Chinese outlet store in Albany known as Wal-Mart, Chinese tires have so successfully undercut U.S.-made tires that the Cooper Tire factory in that south Georgia town had to shut down.



Twenty-one hundred Georgians lost their jobs.



The tale of Cooper Tire and what it portends is told (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/07/AR2009090702260.html) in last week’s Washington Post by Peter Whoriskey.



How could tires made on the other side of the world, then shipped to Albany, be sold for less than tires made in Albany?
Here’s how.



At Cooper Tire, the wages were $18 to $21 per hour. In China, they are a fraction of that. The Albany factory is subject to U.S. health-and-safety, wage-and-hour and civil rights laws from which Chinese plants are exempt. Environmental standards had to be met at Cooper Tire or the plant would have been closed. Chinese factories are notorious polluters.



China won the competition because the 14th Amendment’s “equal protection of the laws” does not apply to the People’s Republic. While free trade laws grant China free and equal access to the U.S. market, China can pay workers wages and force them to work hours that would violate U.S. law, and China can operate plants whose health, safety and environmental standards would have their U.S. competitors shut down as public nuisances.
Beijing also manipulates its currency to keep export prices low and grants a rebate on its value-added tax on exports to the U.S.A., while imposing a value-added tax on goods coming from the U.S.A.



Thus did China, from 2004 to 2008, triple her share of the U.S. tire market from 5 percent to 17 percent and take down Cooper Tire of Albany.
But not to worry. Cooper Tire has seen the light and is now opening and acquiring plants in China, and sending Albany workers over to train the Chinese who took their jobs.



Welcome to 21st century America, where globalism has replaced patriotism as the civil religion of our corporate elites. As Thomas Jefferson reminded us, “Merchants have no country.”



What has this meant to the republic that was once the most self-sufficient and independent in all of history?



Since 2001, when George Bush took the oath, the United States has run $3.8 trillion in trade deficits in manufactured goods, more than twice the $1.68 trillion in trade deficits we ran for imported oil and gas.



Our trade deficit with China in manufactured goods alone, $1.58 trillion over those eight years, roughly equals the entire U.S. trade deficit for oil and gas.



U.S. politicians never cease to wail of the need for “energy independence.” But why is our dependence on the oil of Saudi Arabia, the Gulf, Nigeria, Canada, Mexico and Venezuela a greater concern than our dependence on a non-democratic rival great power for computers and vital components of our weapons systems and high-tech industries?



As Executive Director Auggie Tantillo of the American Manufacturing Trade Action Committee compellingly argues:



“Running a trade deficit for natural resources that the United States lacks is something that cannot be helped, but running a massive deficit in manmade products that America easily could produce itself is a choice—a poor choice that is bankrupting the country and responsible for the loss of millions of jobs.”



How many millions of jobs?



In the George W. Bush years, we lost 5.3 million manufacturing jobs, one-fourth to one-third of all we had in 2001.



And our dependence on China is growing.



Where Beijing was responsible for 60 percent of the U.S. trade deficit in manufactured goods in 2008, in the first six months of 2009, China accounted for 79 percent of our trade deficit in manufactured goods.
How can we end this dependency and begin building factories and creating jobs here, rather than deepening our dependency on a China that seeks to take our place in the sun? The same way Alexander Hamilton did, when we Americans produced almost nothing and were even more dependent on Great Britain than we are on China today.



Let us do unto our trading partners as they have done unto us.
As they rebate value-added taxes on exports to us, and impose a value-added tax on our exports to them, let us reciprocate. Impose a border tax equal to a VAT on all their goods entering the United States, and use the hundreds of billions to cut corporate taxes on all manufacturing done here in the United States.



Where they have tilted the playing field against us, let us tilt it back again. Transnational companies are as amoral as sharks. What is needed is simply to cut their profits from moving factories and jobs abroad and increase their profits for bringing them back to the U.S.A.



It’s not rocket science. Hamilton, James Madison and Abraham Lincoln all did it. Obama’s tariffs on Chinese tires are a good start.

[101A]

Down at the Chinese outlet store in Albany known as Wal-Mart

LMAO

It's funny because it's true.

[101A]

There was a box in my house, unopened since a move my wife and I made in 1991 - from our rental to our first mortaged home; it, somehow, managed 4 successive moves without being opened.

I noticed it in the attic a couple of months ago, and its contents, as you can imagine, not having been missed for 18 years, were unremarkable; except for 1 thing: many, many of the little incidental things in there: Christmas tree stands, measuring cups, a door mat, COAT HANGERS, a stapler; bore the "Made in the USA" label. And to an item were FAR better constructed and durable than an equivalent item you might buy today. We as a people have been conditioned, over time, to accept crap and disposibility in damn near everything we purchase, as long as its cheap; regardless of where it came from.

Most favored nation status for China was a HORRIBLE idea; brought to you by a President from Arkansas. Anyone remember where Wal-Mart is based? There are no coincidences.

5 years ago I would have hated the idea of tariffs and protectionism. I have begun to see the light. Free markets can ONLY work when the playing field is at least a little bit level.

[LnGrrrR]

I expect the majority of conservatives to look at this very seriously... and then demand that we get rid of all these 'health' and 'environmental' restrictions that are holding back American corporations from maximizing their profit.

[Winehole23]

Why stop there? We could repeal the minimum wage too.

[Winehole23]

The obvious solution is to emulate the Chinese, right?

[coyotes_geek]

It's funny because it's true.

It's also the way we want it. Sure, we'll pretend to get upset when we hear stories like these. But when it comes time to literally put our money where our mouths are, we're not up to the task. We just like living in this dreamworld where Americans making lavish wages produce goods that we can buy cheaply.

[LnGrrrR]

The obvious solution is to emulate the Chinese, right?

Of course! That's what made America great! A Bible in every home, and a child in every factory! GOD BLESS AMERICA!

[coyotes_geek]

I expect the majority of conservatives to look at this very seriously... and then demand that we get rid of all these 'health' and 'environmental' restrictions that are holding back American corporations from maximizing their profit.

The health and the environmental restrictions are fine. I wish we'd cut business income tax rates in half.

[Winehole23]

The health and the environmental restrictions are fine. I wish we'd cut business income tax rates in half.Tariffs make this possible to do, as pointed out in the OP.

[Winehole23]

There was a box in my house, unopened since a move my wife and I made in 1991 - from our rental to our first mortaged home; it, somehow, managed 4 successive moves without being opened.

I noticed it in the attic a couple of months ago, and its contents, as you can imagine, not having been missed for 18 years, were unremarkable; except for 1 thing: many, many of the little incidental things in there: Christmas tree stands, measuring cups, a door mat, COAT HANGERS, a stapler; bore the "Made in the USA" label. And to an item were FAR better constructed and durable than an equivalent item you might buy today. We as a people have been conditioned, over time, to accept crap and disposibility in damn near everything we purchase, as long as its cheap; regardless of where it came from.

Most favored nation status for China was a HORRIBLE idea; brought to you by a President from Arkansas. Anyone remember where Wal-Mart is based? There are no coincidences.

5 years ago I would have hated the idea of tariffs and protectionism. I have begun to see the light. Free markets can ONLY work when the playing field is at least a little bit level.:tu

[LnGrrrR]

Tariffs make this possible to do, as pointed out in the OP.

Pffft Winehole. You keep forgetting that in every instance of taxes being cut, production goes up and America benefits. You don't need tariffs to balance them out.

Here, let me show you.

Step 1. Cut taxes.
Step 2. ?????
Step 3. Profit

[Winehole23]

5 years ago I would have hated the idea of tariffs and protectionism. I have begun to see the light. Free markets can ONLY work when the playing field is at least a little bit level.Also, the participants should be free. Countries with unfree people and unfree capital are not equal partners in *free* trade. They have an an unfair advantage. Trade policy used to address this, and still should.

[MannyIsGod]

Well, that assumes that the tariffs level the playing field between the US and China and they are the only ones playing. But tires come from other places too and they are going to be cheaper from there if not as cheap as from China. Not so sure I like this move at all.

[Winehole23]

Well, that assumes that the tariffs level the playing field between the US and China and they are the only ones playing. But tires come from other places too and they are going to be cheaper from there if not as cheap as from China. Not so sure I like this move at all.Not all of those places are "most favored", so the traction they get is likely to be limited, nor do other countries have the same kind of leverage the Chinese have, as our lender of first, last and only resort besides the Fed.

[MannyIsGod]

Not all of those places are "most favored", so the traction they get is likely to be limited, nor do other countries have the same kind of leverage the Chinese have, as our lender of first, last and only resort besides the Fed.

No, that's true, but this move doesn't necessarily gain anything for Americans other than higher costs.

Don't get me wrong, I've never been Mr. Laissez-faire but I'd like to be pragmatic about what this means before I don the USA Pom Poms.

[101A]

Well, that assumes that the tariffs level the playing field between the US and China and they are the only ones playing. But tires come from other places too and they are going to be cheaper from there if not as cheap as from China. Not so sure I like this move at all.

Michelin = France

Yokohama = Japan

Pirelli = Italy

Goodyear = USA

Cooper always managed to compete with the big boys by being a quality tire for less $$$. Their niche got wiped out by the Chinese. The bottom line is MAYBE TIRES JUST OUGHT NOT BE SO DAMNED CHEAP! If we, as a country, feel it is right to burden our company's with minimum wage, hour, and other regulatory hurdles - and quite possibly, if "card check" passes, additional demands from reinvigorated unions; why must those companies ALSO be burdened with competing with foreign companies which have no such burdens upon them. By buying products, then from those companies, aren't we also saying those regulations and hurdles are, really, just feel-good bullshit? That we LITERALLY want someone else to pay for laws we pass to make ourselves feel good?

[Winehole23]

No, that's true, but this move doesn't necessarily gain anything for Americans other than higher costs.

Don't get me wrong, I've never been Mr. Laissez-faire but I'd like to be pragmatic about what this means before I don the USA Pom Poms.Paying less for your tires could mean putting Americans out of business. How you settle this is between you and your conscience.

(Written from my Chinese-made Lenovo ThinkPad) :lol

[coyotes_geek]

Tariffs make this possible to do, as pointed out in the OP.

True. A worthy concept. But does our government have the balls to put tariffs on chinese manufacturers when they're so dependent on chinese banks?

[Winehole23]

Putting tariffs on tires, supposing Obama goes through with it, is a start. Though somehow I doubt the protection will be coupled with income tax abatement.

[DarrinS]

Personally, I prefer Michelin and Yokohamas.

And Kumho tires are from Korea, I believe.


Face it, the US is not going to be all that competitive when I comes to manufacturing. Our costs are just too high. We either have to artificially alter the market and force people to buy more expensive, i.e. American, products, or Americans that work in these fields will simply have to learn new trades.


Where are all those damn green jobs, anyway?

[DarrinS]

Paying less for your tires could mean putting Americans out of business. How you settle this is between you and your conscience.



I have not owned an American-made vehicle in almost two decades and I sleep fine at night.

[Winehole23]

Face it, the US is not going to be all that competitive when I comes to manufacturing.Good thing we didn't have this attitude in our first hundred years as a nation.

Face it, throwing up your hands in the face of globalization sucks as an industrial policy.

[DarrinS]

Good thing we didn't have this attitude in our first hundred years as a nation.

Face it, throwing up your hands in the face of globalization sucks as an industrial policy.



Ours is a post-industrial economy and has been for quite a long time.

[Winehole23]

Votaries of progress will demur, but our government is still supposed to protect long-term US interests, like self-sufficiency, and like having a real core of productive value to on which to base debt-financed growth.

[Winehole23]

Letting the core of productive value continue to be stripped away is basically a vote for the pauperization of Americans and the future dependency of the USA as a nation.

[Winehole23]

DarrinS is basically urging that multinational corporations remain free to strip the nation's wealth, and trample us all underfoot. Make way for progress.

[LnGrrrR]

Michelin = France

Yokohama = Japan

Pirelli = Italy

Goodyear = USA

Cooper always managed to compete with the big boys by being a quality tire for less $$$. Their niche got wiped out by the Chinese. The bottom line is MAYBE TIRES JUST OUGHT NOT BE SO DAMNED CHEAP! If we, as a country, feel it is right to burden our company's with minimum wage, hour, and other regulatory hurdles - and quite possibly, if "card check" passes, additional demands from reinvigorated unions; why must those companies ALSO be burdened with competing with foreign companies which have no such burdens upon them. By buying products, then from those companies, aren't we also saying those regulations and hurdles are, really, just feel-good bullshit? That we LITERALLY want someone else to pay for laws we pass to make ourselves feel good?

Not sure about tires, but all my cars (four) have been American. Though that's mostly been because I've liked those cars, and not out of some deep seated loyalty to American business.

[doobs]

http://blogs.nashvillescene.com/bites/HawleySmoot.jpg

[Winehole23]

Smoot-Hawley. Are you a johnny-one-note, doobs?

[doobs]

Smoot-Hawley. Are you a johnny-one-note, doobs?

Are you? You're pro-protectionist arguments are growing tired.

And you're so very wrong, to boot. I think it's helpful to remind everyone what happened last time the economy was really bad and we responded with protectionism.

[Winehole23]

A measured response to unfair trade practices by an unfree country doesn't even approach Smoot Hawley.

[Winehole23]

And the idea that we don't already protect domestic industry in a multitude of ways is just wrong.

[Winehole23]

Isn't our government supposed to protect US trade interests?

[doobs]

And the idea that we don't already protect domestic industry in a multitude of ways is just wrong.

Whoah, when did I say that?

[Winehole23]

Whoah, when did I say that?You suggested case in point is equivalent to Smoot-Hawley. It isn't.

[doobs]

A measured response to unfair trade practices by an unfree country doesn't even approach Smoot Hawley.

Really? Are you even remotely aware of the consequences of the US using the vague, catch-all section 421 of the Trade Act? Why do you think China is considering severe retaliation? Do you think that's a good thing?

[doobs]

Isn't our government supposed to protect US trade interests?

Yep. Protectionism hurts both countries involved.

[doobs]

You suggested case in point is equivalent to Smoot-Hawley. It isn't.

You said, "And the idea that we don't already protect domestic industry in a multitude of ways is just wrong."

What is that a response to?

[LnGrrrR]

Really? Are you even remotely aware of the consequences of the US using the vague, catch-all section 421 of the Trade Act? Why do you think China is considering severe retaliation? Do you think that's a good thing?

Care to explain to the board why protectionism is bad?

[Winehole23]

So then, no trade policy at all would be preferable in your view? No distinction between free and unfree partners?

[Winehole23]

You said, "And the idea that we don't already protect domestic industry in a multitude of ways is just wrong."

What is that a response to?That there's a target-rich environment for you, and little reason to pick on what seems (to me, ok?) like a legit beef about China's predatory trade practices directly affecting us. What, we're supposed to lie back and take it, for the sake of economic efficiency and low, low prices?

[baseline bum]

Come on. China creates lots of $8 an hour jobs with no health benefits for our nation's citizens at Wal-Mart, Target, and so on.

[Winehole23]

Really? Are you even remotely aware of the consequences of the US using the vague, catch-all section 421 of the Trade Act? Why do you think China is considering severe retaliation? Do you think that's a good thing?If it fosters US independence from China, in the long run it could be. I won't pretend there's no downside. You seem to be arguing for China's upside, at our expense.

[Winehole23]

Come on. China creates lots of $8 an hour jobs with no health benefits for our nation's citizens at Wal-Mart, Target, and so on.This is the upside. Economic efficiency trumps standard of living for Americans.

[DarrinS]

DarrinS is basically urging that multinational corporations remain free to strip the nation's wealth, and trample us all underfoot. Make way for progress.


Meh, I think you're being a little dramatic. I'd rather have Americans doing the science and engineering and leave the fab to someone else.

[Winehole23]

Basically, in the name of economic rationality, absolutist free traders like doobs are willing to see our own self-sufficiency and standard of living go to hell.

Hell, maybe they even want it.

[DarrinS]

Can someone explain to me why a guy on an assembly line making widgets justifies $25/hour, medical benefits, and a pension?

[DarrinS]

Basically, in the name of economic rationality, absolutist free traders like doobs are willing to see our own self-sufficiency and standard of living go to hell.

Hell, maybe they even want it.



Actually, as things are produced at a lower cost by Asians, et. al., our standard of living rises.

How ubiquitous are cell phones these days?

[Winehole23]

Meh, I think you're being a little dramatic. I'd rather have Americans doing the science and engineering and leave the fab to someone else.Is this the case now? America isn't producing enough scientists and engineers to meet global demand. It's my understanding that this expertise is moving, has been moving, offshore for some time. India and China are the main markets for engineering talent these days.

[coyotes_geek]

Care to explain to the board why protectionism is bad?

Protectionism removes incentives towards innovation and efficiency. It also drives up consumer costs which reduces their buying power.

I liken protectionism to chemo-therapy. You only take the poison when the cancer poses the bigger risk.

[Winehole23]

Actually, as things are produced at a lower cost by Asians, et. al., our standard of living rises.

How ubiquitous are cell phones these days?While our incomes stay flat, debt/savings ratios are sinking us, and the cost of health care and education rise over and above inflation? Explain how that works.

[Winehole23]

Can someone explain to me why a guy on an assembly line making widgets justifies $25/hour, medical benefits, and a pension?Write your own damn post, Darrin.

Damn, you're lazy.

[coyotes_geek]

Is this the case now? America isn't producing enough scientists and engineers to meet global demand. It's my understanding that this expertise is moving, has been moving, offshore for some time. India and China are the main markets for engineering talent these days.

True. Not nearly enough American teens are going into science and engineering. That's why even in this tough economy engineering grads can still get $75k/yr straight out of college, depending on the discipline.

[doobs]

Care to explain to the board why protectionism is bad?

The simplest, clearest argument against protectionism is the economic concept of comparative advantage. Both countries in a bilateral free trade relationship are allowed to pursue the most efficient allocation of resources by producing only the most profitable products. And consumers in both countries win by being able to buy goods for cheaper, and devote more of their own resources to savings or investment or whatever else they might want to buy.

Protectionism raises prices because the market is less competitive. Ultimately, consumers will respond by buying less. Which leads to anemic economic performance and unemployment. So, inflation and economic weakness. Stagflation. Beautiful.

Protectionism also encourages other countries to undertake retaliatory measures. Which closes markets to American goods. Which hinders the profitability of American companies. Which leads to anemic economic performance and unemployment. And . . . you get the idea.

[DarrinS]

While our incomes stay flat, debt/savings ratios are sinking us, and the cost of health care and education rise over and above inflation? Explain how that works.


We spend more per student than probably any other country. How's that working?

[Winehole23]

I liken protectionism to chemo-therapy. You only take the poison when the cancer poses the bigger risk.I know that timing is an important question, but isn't it at least possible in principle that there's some modest core of real productivity worth hanging onto, and protecting from the likes of a China?

[Winehole23]

The simplest, clearest argument against protectionism is the economic concept of comparative advantage. Both countries in a bilateral free trade relationship are allowed to pursue the most efficient allocation of resources by producing only the most profitable products. And consumers in both countries win by being able to buy goods for cheaper, and devote more of their own resources to savings or investment or whatever else they might want to buy.

Protectionism raises prices because the market is less competitive. Ultimately, consumers will respond by buying less. Which leads to anemic economic performance and unemployment. So, inflation and economic weakness. Stagflation. Beautiful.

Protectionism also encourages other countries to undertake retaliatory measures. Which closes markets to American goods. Which hinders the profitability of American companies. Which leads to anemic economic performance and unemployment. And . . . you get the idea.So then, low prices for everything trumps national interests?

[doobs]

Basically, in the name of economic rationality, absolutist free traders like doobs are willing to see our own self-sufficiency and standard of living go to hell.

Hell, maybe they even want it.

You're making things up now. Our standard or living go to hell?

What the hell are you talking about?

I could say protectionists like you want to suck the cock of unions and don't care if persistent unemployment and stagflation become a reality in America.

[Winehole23]

We spend more per student than probably any other country. How's that working?You evaded a question with a question. Classic.

[DarrinS]

True. Not nearly enough American teens are going into science and engineering. That's why even in this tough economy engineering grads can still get $75k/yr straight out of college, depending on the discipline.


Doctors and engineers actually don't mind that there is a shortage. Also why nurses make quite a bit of money.


On the flip side, there are way more lawyers than anyone could ever use.

[DarrinS]

WH,


Why is GM such a huge failure?

[Winehole23]

I could say protectionists like you want to suck the cock of unions and don't care if persistent unemployment and stagflation become a reality in America.Persistent unemployment and stagflation is the "good" outcome of the fix we're in already, irrespective of protectionist measures. You say that greater economic efficiency and post-industrialism makes us wealthier, but the last 30 years shows this not to be the case. Debt driven growth has wrecked us. Maybe we made a wrong turn.

[LnGrrrR]

Can someone explain to me why a guy on an assembly line making widgets justifies $25/hour, medical benefits, and a pension?

As soon as you explain to me how Americans can hope to compete with Chinese workers making rough $1500 annually.

You do remember me looking up that bit of info after you asked in another thread, correct?

Or is it your belief that all Americans can be involved in non-menial labor? Or perhaps they should just all have to move to China and work for 2 dollars an hour or so.

[Winehole23]

True. Not nearly enough American teens are going into science and engineering. That's why even in this tough economy engineering grads can still get $75k/yr straight out of college, depending on the discipline.More than a few older engineers I know have been laid off, in favor foreign talent. We're shitcanning our own experienced experts for the sake of a buck. How is that good?

[LnGrrrR]

Protectionism removes incentives towards innovation and efficiency. It also drives up consumer costs which reduces their buying power.

I liken protectionism to chemo-therapy. You only take the poison when the cancer poses the bigger risk.

But if these tariffs are associated with a reduced tax rate for corporations, can't corporation then lower the price of their goods below overseas competitors?

Also, how does protectionism remove incentives towards innovation and efficiency, if the only solution to said efficiency would seemingly be to get rid of existing labor laws? After all, there's a HUGE economic disparity in living wage between us and China, and a few bells and whistles on an American product won't necessarily make up for it.

[DarrinS]

As soon as you explain to me how Americans can hope to compete with Chinese workers making rough $1500 annually.



Like I've already said, it's impossible to compete with that. The better question might be, do we really want to? Maybe it's best that we outsource the manufacturing of Happy Meal junk toys to the Chi-coms.




Or is it your belief that all Americans can be involved in non-menial labor? Or perhaps they should just all have to move to China and work for 2 dollars an hour or so.


If we only bought "Made in the USA" products, our poor would become even poorer. Ironic.

[Winehole23]

WH,


Why is GM such a huge failure? Unsustainable legacy costs, brought on by their own bad business model. If you believe in freedom of contract, this is on the heads of management no less than labor. Management signed on the dotted line. So much the worse for them if they can't compete because of it.

[DarrinS]

More than a few older engineers I know have been laid off, in favor foreign talent. We're shitcanning our own experienced experts for the sake of a buck. How is that good?


I'm not doubting that you know a few, but that's hasn't been my experience. If you interview where I work and have difficulty putting together a coherent English sentence, you're probably not getting the job.

[DarrinS]

Unsustainable legacy costs, ...

bingo

[Winehole23]

Like I've already said, it's impossible to compete with that. The better question might be, do we really want to? Maybe it's best that we outsource the manufacturing of Happy Meal junk toys to the Chi-coms.This is dishonest. Just look at electronics.


If we only bought "Made in the USA" products, our poor would become even poorer. Ironic.Oh, yeah? Prove it.

[LnGrrrR]

The simplest, clearest argument against protectionism is the economic concept of comparative advantage. Both countries in a bilateral free trade relationship are allowed to pursue the most efficient allocation of resources by producing only the most profitable products. And consumers in both countries win by being able to buy goods for cheaper, and devote more of their own resources to savings or investment or whatever else they might want to buy.

Protectionism raises prices because the market is less competitive. Ultimately, consumers will respond by buying less. Which leads to anemic economic performance and unemployment. So, inflation and economic weakness. Stagflation. Beautiful.

Protectionism also encourages other countries to undertake retaliatory measures. Which closes markets to American goods. Which hinders the profitability of American companies. Which leads to anemic economic performance and unemployment. And . . . you get the idea.

I understand the general idea. But when you have country A) with workers that must make at least 8 dollars an hour as well as regulations that cut into profit, and country B) which can pay its workers, say 2 dollars an hour, with no concern over pollution and other issues... well, there's an obvious disparity there. Businesses will go to the people who they can pay for 2 dollars an hour.

Now, the way I see it, there's three routes.

1) Protectionism, such as leveling the field with import tariffs/taxes

2) Laissez-faire, and hope you convince enough people to "buy American"

3) Getting rid of the rules and regulations that prevent us from paying someone 2 dollars an hour

It seems we've been trying number 2 with unsuccessful results. And number 3 won't happen.

[doobs]

But if these tariffs are associated with a reduced tax rate for corporations, can't corporation then lower the price of their goods below overseas competitors?

Maybe, but those tariffs and tax subsidies will encourage other countries to retaliate with their own tariffs and subsidies, which will close markets to American companies. American exporters will suffer.

[LnGrrrR]

Like I've already said, it's impossible to compete with that. The better question might be, do we really want to? Maybe it's best that we outsource the manufacturing of Happy Meal junk toys to the Chi-coms.

And those who can't get a job in non-menial labor? I guess survival of the fittest, and balls to them?

If that's your view, then hey, at least you're honest.

[DarrinS]

This is dishonest. Just look at electronics.



Ok, I'll bite. What about electronics?

[Winehole23]

IBM is now Lenovo. It's part of a trend. Chinese industry is not all happy meals and crappy toys, as you have suggested.

[DarrinS]

And those who can't get a job in non-menial labor? I guess survival of the fittest, and balls to them?

If that's your view, then hey, at least you're honest.


Well, at one point in our history, a very large number of people worked on farms. Things change.

[LnGrrrR]

Maybe, but those tariffs and tax subsidies will encourage other countries to retaliate with their own tariffs and subsidies, which will close markets to American companies. American exporters will suffer.

But if their prices are now LOWER than foriegn companies prices, could they not make up for that somewhat by selling more in the American market?

Additionally, are there any American exports that are being sold to China that are bought purposefully because they are cheaper? Or are American exports bought in China due to brand, appeal, etc etc?

[DarrinS]

IBM is now Lenovo. It's part of a trend. Chinese industry is not all happy meals and crappy toys.


I was just being an ass. I know they make more than dog toys.

[LnGrrrR]

Well, at one point in our history, a very large number of people worked on farms. Things change.

Hey, if that's your view, fine. I would argue that placing large amounts of unskilled workers out of work is a recipe for two things.

1) Large amounts of social unrest

2) Politicians voted in specifically to benefit those unskilled laborers

I don't think we'd like to see either of those things happen.

[DarrinS]

Additionally, are there any American exports that are being sold to China that are bought purposefully because they are cheaper? Or are American exports bought in China due to brand, appeal, etc etc?


These people can't even afford a good pack of smokes, so I don't think they're in the market for a pair of Air Jordans.

[Winehole23]

You can start taking the conversation seriously anytime you like. De-industrialization has been a bitch for regular Americans, and not just for pampered union workers. Measured by real wages, our fortunes have been going sideways for awhile. Now they're going down.

Where's the theoretical tide that floats all boats? The growth of the last 30 years was a mirage based on unsustainable debt, not real value and productivity.

[DarrinS]

Hey, if that's your view, fine. I would argue that placing large amounts of unskilled workers out of work is a recipe for two things.

1) Large amounts of social unrest

2) Politicians voted in specifically to benefit those unskilled laborers

I don't think we'd like to see either of those things happen.



Well, I guess the only solution is to keep these manufacturing companies afloat on the backs of the US tax payer. :toast

[Winehole23]

Levelling the playing field isn't tantamount to nationalization. Weak.

[DarrinS]

You can start taking the conversation seriously anytime you like. De-industrialization has been a bitch for regular Americans, and not just for pampered union workers. Measured by real wages, our fortunes have been going sideways for awhile. Now they're going down.

Where's the theoretical tide that floats all boats? The growth of the last 30 years was a mirage based on unsustainable debt.


Maybe our historical standard of living has been too high. I've seen people use the Loan Star card at HEB and go hop in their Escalade in the parking lot.

[baseline bum]

Protectionism also encourages other countries to undertake retaliatory measures. Which closes markets to American goods. Which hinders the profitability of American companies. Which leads to anemic economic performance and unemployment. And . . . you get the idea.

Oh no. China is going to close their borders to American goods none of their people can afford anyways. You sound like Clinton when he was pimping most favored nation status with China, talking about how we'd be able to sell our manufactured goods to a market of 1+ billion people. That worked out great!

[Winehole23]

So then, you admit that de-industrialization adversely affects the fortunes of Americans, and you support that? Efficiency drags us all down, as it should in your view.

But I thought it was supposed to make us richer. You seem to be admitting it doesn't.

You can't have it both ways, Darrin.

[Winehole23]

These people can't even afford a good pack of smokes, so I don't think they're in the market for a pair of Air Jordans.You'd be wrong about that. An economy that grows at 8%/year produces a lot of disposable wealth.

Why would we be so pissed off at the Chinese over the piracy of brands if what you were saying were really true?

[101A]

Meh, I think you're being a little dramatic. I'd rather have Americans doing the science and engineering and leave the fab to someone else.

What about the 99% of Americans incapable of science and engineering?

[DarrinS]

What about the 99% of Americans incapable of science and engineering?


Well, for those people, there's always real estate and pharmaceutical sales rep.

[101A]

IBM is now Lenovo.

Nah - just a small part.

Just like they did in the '90's when they spun of Lexmark (printers and typewriters) - IBM is, again, focussing on its CORE business; big, bad, powerful machines for corps. /digression

[DarrinS]

So then, you admit that de-industrialization adversely affects the fortunes of Americans, and you support that? Efficiency drags us all down, as it should in your view.

But I thought it was supposed to make us richer. You seem to be admitting it doesn't.

You can't have it both ways, Darrin.




All I know is that I paid $2500 for a PC when I was in college that would now be a boat anchor.


For that price, I can now get 5 PC's that are about 100x faster.


So, in a sense, I became richer.

[101A]

Well, for those people, there's always real estate and pharmaceutical sales rep.

There's a doctor's office that shares our lobby in San Antonio; trust me, MOST people are not cut out for pharmaceutical sales rep gigs - don't have the assets. /another digression

[Winehole23]

It's all wisecracks and anecdotes with you, isn't it, Darrin?

You just pretend to have a real argument. In fact you have nothing but cliches and bs anecdotes that don't mean squat.

[Winehole23]

Nah - just a small part.

Just like they did in the '90's when they spun of Lexmark (printers and typewriters) - IBM is, again, focussing on its CORE business; big, bad, powerful machines for corps. /digressionSurely you're right. I was responding to Darrin's crack about outsourcing being no big deal because the Chinese do nothing but make gimcracks for little kids. That's plainly false.

[DarrinS]

There's a doctor's office that shares our lobby in San Antonio; trust me, MOST people are not cut out for pharmaceutical sales rep gigs - don't have the assets. /another digression


I think I know what you're saying.

:toast

[DarrinS]

It's all wisecracks and anecdotes with you, isn't it, Darrin?

You just pretend to have a real argument. In fact you have nothing but cliches and bs anecdotes that don't mean squat.


I worked at an injection molding factory in the late 80's to early 90's. They decided to move the company to Mexico because there was lower overhead and fewer enviro regs. I moved on and learned new skills and got a new job. That's what American's do.

[LnGrrrR]

What about the 99% of Americans incapable of science and engineering?

I think the technical term that DarrinS would use is, "Balls to you!" followed by some sort of stuck-out tongue. :D lol

[LnGrrrR]

It's all wisecracks and anecdotes with you, isn't it, Darrin?

You just pretend to have a real argument. In fact you have nothing but cliches and bs anecdotes that don't mean squat.

I think DarrinS has an argument; he just knows it sounds somewhat callous put into actual words.

DarrinS's argument, and correct me if I'm wrong, is this:

If Americans don't have the motivation to exceed in 'smarter' jobs, like engineering and science, then they deserve to die off. Americans need to get smarter than the Chinese, because it's not feasible that our economy will drop to a level where $2 an hour would be acceptable to an American worker, so Chinese will always have the edge in 'menial' jobs. If you're one of the smart ones, you can take advantage of the lowered prices of these goods. If you're not, sucks to be you.

[Winehole23]

That's all well and good, D. Bully on you and those like you for their resilience and stick-to-it-iveness.

Do you have a problem with having a government that fights for our interests too, instead of throwing us all under the wheels of progress?

[Bender]

I've seen people use the Loan Star card at HEB...
what are those?

[Winehole23]

If Americans don't have the motivation to exceed in 'smarter' jobs, like engineering and science, then they deserve to die off. Americans need to get smarter than the Chinese, because it's not feasible that our economy will drop to a level where $2 an hour would be acceptable to an American worker, so Chinese will always have the edge in 'menial' jobs. If you're one of the smart ones, you can take advantage of the lowered prices of these goods. If you're not, sucks to be you.Just once, I'd like to see Darrin make his own argument, in his own words.

That almost never happens. I can't think of a single instance, myself.

As for the included argument, there's something to it, though for the life of me I can't see how it precludes our government from fighting for US trade interests and a decent standard of living, even for un-degreed Americans. The idea that only college graduates deserve to reap the fruits of prosperity strikes me as -- dare I say it? -- elitist and wrongheaded.

[coyotes_geek]

I know that timing is an important question, but isn't it at least possible in principle that there's some modest core of real productivity worth hanging onto, and protecting from the likes of a China?

But at what cost? I'm not saying there's never a situation where tariffs or other protectionist policies make sense. But in every situation there's a trade off that needs to be considered. Is it worth making the goods we buy more expensive just to protect domestic jobs? Depends on the situation IMO.


But if these tariffs are associated with a reduced tax rate for corporations, can't corporation then lower the price of their goods below overseas competitors?

Also, how does protectionism remove incentives towards innovation and efficiency, if the only solution to said efficiency would seemingly be to get rid of existing labor laws? After all, there's a HUGE economic disparity in living wage between us and China, and a few bells and whistles on an American product won't necessarily make up for it.

I'm a manufacturer who employs Americans and you're one who employs Chinese. Why should I expend resources to reduce the price of my product if the government is going to use tariffs to make sure that your product is never cheaper than mine?

[LnGrrrR]

Just once, I'd like to see Darrin make his own argument, in his own words.

That almost never happens. I can't think of a single instance, myself.

As for the included argument, there's something to it, though for the life of me I can't see how it precludes our government from fighting for US trade interests and a decent standard of living, even for un-degreed Americans. The idea that only college graduates deserve to reap the fruits of prosperity strikes me as -- dare I say it? -- elitist and wrongheaded.

I believe DarrinS would counter with something along the lines of, "What's wrong with others having to learn new skills? I want my cheap electronics!"

Of course, no word on whether or not he'd be fine with buying cheap American electronics protected by tax cuts made up from tariffs.

I see DarrinS as the political forum's Yoda. He speaks in riddles and questions most of the time, and half of the things he says may or may not make sense.

[Winehole23]

But at what cost? I'm not saying there's never a situation where tariffs or other protectionist policies make sense. But in every situation there's a trade off that needs to be considered. Is it worth making the goods we buy more expensive just to protect domestic jobs? Depends on the situation IMO. This at least is a pragmatic view: weigh the costs and benefits, instead of asserting principles dogmatically. It's not about whose principles are right, but about what's good for us. Reasonable people will disagree plenty about what this is. What I can't stand is people turning ideas out of hand because they are out of step with more "progressive" thinking.

[LnGrrrR]

I'm a manufacturer who employs Americans and you're one who employs Chinese. Why should I expend resources to reduce the price of my product if the government is going to use tariffs to make sure that your product is never cheaper than mine?

How are you going to expend resources in the idea listed in the OP?

Let's say I produce shirts and sell them for $4, and you produce them and sell at $8. In the proposed idea, the tariff would raise Chinese shirts to, say, $6 dollars. The $2 received from the tariff would then go to American companies, in the form of tax cuts, in order to reduce their overhead.

How would American companies, in the example above, have to expend extra resources? The tariff is merely to balance the playing field, it seems, between America which has certain standards, and China which does not.

As I listed above, it seems our three options are to enact tariffs, remove certain regulations, or convince people to buy American. Which of the three policies do you think we should try, or is there a fourth I'm missing?

[Winehole23]

what are those?The Lone Star card is like food stamps; HEB is a supermarket.

[DarrinS]

what are those?

Loan Star cards are food stamps on a credit card.

[Winehole23]

I see DarrinS as the political forum's Yoda. He speaks in riddles and questions most of the time, and half of the things he says may or may not make sense.This is too generous by half, but the comparison to Yoda isn't a bad one.

[DarrinS]

For WH and Lngrrrrrr (?? # of r's)


A very small percentage of our population works as farm laborers these days. All the people that once worked on farms had to go do something else, right?


Would our country have made more or less progress in your opinion if most of us were still farm laborers?

[DarrinS]

This is too generous by half, but the comparison to Yoda isn't a bad one.


Do you remember the story about the Hooter's waitress that entered a contest, thinking the grand prize was a new Toyota and it turned out to be a "toy" Yoda?

[MannyIsGod]

Can someone explain to me why a guy on an assembly line making widgets justifies $25/hour, medical benefits, and a pension?

Because he can get it? How the fuck do you slap capitalism in the face with one hand while patting it on the back with the other?

[Winehole23]

A counterfactual. IMO our present situation isn't analogous.

I don't think our fortunes should be blindly placed at the altar of progress; still less do I accept that de-industrialization is a historical inevitability, and still less an absolute necessity.

Wasn't industrialism the basis of our power and prosperity in the 20th century?

What will replace it, given the poor state of American education, our crushing debt and the increasing instability of the USD, i.e., our purchasing power and standard of living?

Our future prosperity has already been pawned to bail out insolvent banks and unfunded liabilities, and the true depth of wealth destruction in the current recession has yet to fully sink in. On what basis will the purchasing power of the American consumer be revived?

That strikes me as the more pertinent question. Upon what real stores of value will we rebuild our failed economy? More financialized bs will only sink us deeper when the debt bubble pops again, because there was not enough real productive value (i.e., stuff that people want to buy from us) underneath it. Again.

[baseline bum]

I think DarrinS has an argument; he just knows it sounds somewhat callous put into actual words.

DarrinS's argument, and correct me if I'm wrong, is this:

If Americans don't have the motivation to exceed in 'smarter' jobs, like engineering and science, then they deserve to die off. Americans need to get smarter than the Chinese, because it's not feasible that our economy will drop to a level where $2 an hour would be acceptable to an American worker, so Chinese will always have the edge in 'menial' jobs. If you're one of the smart ones, you can take advantage of the lowered prices of these goods. If you're not, sucks to be you.

Wow. Who would have ever guessed Darrin would copy the philosophy of the American public school system, which is great for the top 10-25% who can handle AP and dual credit, but fails miserably with the middle 50%?

[MannyIsGod]

If you're still trying with Darrin WH I don't know what to tell you. He's never had any interest in actually forging a discussion here.

[DarkReign]

Ours is a post-industrial economy and has been for quite a long time.

Youre completely fucking blind if you dont see the problem with a country that has no means to manufacture, much less an incentive to do so.

Your attitude would have brought this Union to its knees years ago...all for a cheaper product, comrade.

[DarrinS]

Because he can get it? How the fuck do you slap capitalism in the face with one hand while patting it on the back with the other?


More power to the union guy for getting his "due". Just don't bitch when those same people bring down GM.

That's all I'm saying.

[MannyIsGod]

In any event, I sadly think Darrin has the right premise while being incorrect at the same time even if he doesn't understand why. We should of course be moving towards an economy that is less reliant on old manufacturing jobs and more cutting edge. The sad fact is that we're not going there because our population is unskilled in the trades that matter for that type of an economy and its not getting better.

We're not preparing our children to keep the US at the forefront of innovation, science and technology. The graduates we produce are not in the right fields and are not good enough to move this economy forward and completely away from manufacturing jobs. As much as we'd like to move into the future we're just too fucking stupid to do it.

[LnGrrrR]

For WH and Lngrrrrrr (?? # of r's)


A very small percentage of our population works as farm laborers these days. All the people that once worked on farms had to go do something else, right?


Would our country have made more or less progress in your opinion if most of us were still farm laborers?

I'm not disagreeing you that the spoils go to the winners. However, if we can institute tariffs to protect American jobs, without significantly affecting our ability to buy goods at low prices, why shouldn't we enact that?

(My question is not rhetorical; I'm interested in hearing the pros and cons. The OP seemed to have a good idea, and I'm looking for cogent arguments against it.)

[Winehole23]

If you're still trying with Darrin WH I don't know what to tell you. He's never had any interest in actually forging a discussion here.Yeah. I don't know what to say. Sometimes people change. But it's pretty rare.

I have a feeling Darrin isn't as shallow, or as oblivious, as he lets on. But it's just a hunch. I have nothing to base it on.

It's a personal foible. I don't like giving up on people. I suppose I'd save myself some grief if I did every now and then. It's hard for me to do.

[MannyIsGod]

More power to the union guy for getting his "due". Just don't bitch when those same people bring down GM.

That's all I'm saying.

Then just don't bitch when other companies overseas don't have to pay huge legacy costs because the government provides health care either. You always want to paint the world into this simple picture where a move is either right or wrong based upon how it fits into your retarded paradigm which doesn't even consider so many factors.

You bitch and complain about GM and its so called legacy costs and completely ignore the fact that other companies overseas don't have to pay those legacy costs because the society as a whole upholds the burden. GM wasn't competing with 3rd world countries paying their employees 2 dollars an hour, they were competing with Japan.

[LnGrrrR]

More power to the union guy for getting his "due". Just don't bitch when those same people bring down GM.

That's all I'm saying.

Why not blame management for accepting the deal? Why should the workers be the ones to give up the promises they fought for? And if they choose to fight to the point where they destroy the very company they work for? Well, that's their right, as I see it.

[Winehole23]

Why not blame management for accepting the deal? .Because he likes bogeymen, cliches and very simple stories.

[ChumpDumper]

More power to the union guy for getting his "due". Just don't bitch when those same people bring down GM.

That's all I'm saying.Those Cooper Tire workers in Georgia were not members of a union.

[DarkReign]

Elitist Liberals and Conservatives?

Say it isnt so :rolleyes

Right, I mean, you could totally take every line worker, construction worker and shop-rat job and replace it with Engineering jobs!

Man! Why didnt someone else think of this?!

You guys are totally onto something, there...

Let me think it through though...

So out of the, oh I dont know, 20 to 30 fucking million Americans who do these "menial" jobs, we can sooooo expect there to be an engineering position in some other company just waiting for them, right?

I mean, thats the nd game, correct?

And pray tell, sages of sanctimony, what happens when the market is flooded with supply, but demand is lowered?

Ohhhh, your fancy engineering degree holds no water any longer because, apparently, some genius thought it a great idea to just eliminate the need for "menial" labor and make everyone a professional!

Therefore, for every engineering job, there will be something to the tune of 1000 people vying for it.

Oh yeah, you guys got this cracked. It was tough, but you solved it in two forum pages and a whoooooole lot of ignorance and elitism. How is the view from the Ivory Tower, btw?

[DarrinS]

Why not blame management for accepting the deal?


Ok, they are to blame too. Bottom line is, if your products are shoddy and expensive, you probably won't stay in business for long.



Why should the workers be the ones to give up the promises they fought for?


Well, if their employer can't stay in business, they are just SOL.




And if they choose to fight to the point where they destroy the very company they work for? Well, that's their right, as I see it.

I agree.

[DarrinS]

Those Cooper Tire workers in Georgia were not members of a union.


Fair enough, but the conversation went there.

[ChumpDumper]

Fair enough, but the conversation went there.Who took it there?

[Winehole23]

Fair enough, but the conversation went there.You took it there. It was a gross simplification.

[LnGrrrR]

Elitist Liberals and Conservatives?

Say it isnt so :rolleyes

Right, I mean, you could totally take every line worker, construction worker and shop-rat job and replace it with Engineering jobs!

Man! Why didnt someone else think of this?!

You guys are totally onto something, there...

Let me think it through though...

So out of the, oh I dont know, 20 to 30 fucking million Americans who do these "menial" jobs, we can sooooo expect there to be an engineering position in some other company just waiting for them, right?

I mean, thats the nd game, correct?

And pray tell, sages of sanctimony, what happens when the market is flooded with supply, but demand is lowered?

Ohhhh, your fancy engineering degree holds no water any longer because, apparently, some genius thought it a great idea to just eliminate the need for "menial" labor and make everyone a professional!

Therefore, for every engineering job, there will be something to the tune of 1000 people vying for it.

Oh yeah, you guys got this cracked. It was tough, but you solved it in two forum pages and a whoooooole lot of ignorance and elitism. How is the view from the Ivory Tower, btw?

Cmon DR... I'm sure it's not just engineers. I think we need more doctors and scientists too.

/snark

Honestly, I don't think Americans getting more educated is a bad thing at all. But I certainly don't think we should just throw up our hands and forgo manufacturing. Hence the reason I like this tariff idea.

[Winehole23]

And wrong.

[MannyIsGod]

Elitist Liberals and Conservatives?

Say it isnt so :rolleyes

Right, I mean, you could totally take every line worker, construction worker and shop-rat job and replace it with Engineering jobs!

Man! Why didnt someone else think of this?!

You guys are totally onto something, there...

Let me think it through though...

So out of the, oh I dont know, 20 to 30 fucking million Americans who do these "menial" jobs, we can sooooo expect there to be an engineering position in some other company just waiting for them, right?

I mean, thats the nd game, correct?

And pray tell, sages of sanctimony, what happens when the market is flooded with supply, but demand is lowered?

Ohhhh, your fancy engineering degree holds no water any longer because, apparently, some genius thought it a great idea to just eliminate the need for "menial" labor and make everyone a professional!

Therefore, for every engineering job, there will be something to the tune of 1000 people vying for it.

Oh yeah, you guys got this cracked. It was tough, but you solved it in two forum pages and a whoooooole lot of ignorance and elitism. How is the view from the Ivory Tower, btw?

What are you talking about? There will always be manufacturing jobs as long as the world needs it. No one is advocating the elimination of anything.

What you need to realize is that as the world moves forward and manufacturing becomes more efficient those jobs are eliminated simply as a matter of course. It then becomes necessary for a society to adapt and find ways for those people to become employable of simply flounder.

Is it elitist that we no longer employee anyone using or making a fucking cotton gin? No, its progress.

[DarrinS]

Then just don't bitch when other companies overseas don't have to pay huge legacy costs because the government provides health care either.


I didn't and I won't.



You bitch and complain about GM and its so called legacy costs and completely ignore the fact that other companies overseas don't have to pay those legacy costs because the society as a whole upholds the burden. GM wasn't competing with 3rd world countries paying their employees 2 dollars an hour, they were competing with Japan.

I didn't ignore that fact. It was one of my main points. Japan kicked our ass in the auto market because they were innovative and have very high quality products. They would also churn out new models pretty regularly. Their US counterparts wouldn't change a vehicle model for an entire decade! Example: 1995-2005 Chevy Cavalier

[MannyIsGod]

We're not throwing up our hands at manufacturing as a nation. Where do you guys come up with this? Its not like the wizard of oz is sitting behind some curtain in DC pulling a lever that is marked "cut manufacturing".

There are many reasons for this happening and they are reasons you likely can't stop. The rest of the world was not going to stay farmers and pheasants forever simply for America's liking.

At this point you make a choice. You either try to desperately hold onto those jobs or you adapt. Holding onto those jobs doesn't sound like a hell of an option unless the American worker is willing to start working for a hell of a lot less.

[MannyIsGod]

I didn't and I won't.




I didn't ignore that fact. It was one of my main points. Japan kicked our ass in the auto market because they were innovative and have very high quality products. They would also churn out new models pretty regularly. Their US counterparts wouldn't change a vehicle model for an entire decade! Example: 1995-2005 Chevy Cavalier

LOL What? You have never brought up that Japan having universal health-care is a boon for their companies and you sure as hell aren't doing it here.

[coyotes_geek]

How are you going to expend resources in the idea listed in the OP?

Let's say I produce shirts and sell them for $4, and you produce them and sell at $8. In the proposed idea, the tariff would raise Chinese shirts to, say, $6 dollars. The $2 received from the tariff would then go to American companies, in the form of tax cuts, in order to reduce their overhead.

How would American companies, in the example above, have to expend extra resources? The tariff is merely to balance the playing field, it seems, between America which has certain standards, and China which does not.

Entirely possible that I didn't make my point clearly, but I was saying that with the tariffs companies will have reason to not expend resources to become more efficient. In your example I don't do anything and just pocket the free $2. Meanwhile the consumers get screwed because the cheapest shirt they can get just went up in price from $4 to $6.

Without the tariff I either need to figure out how to make shirts for $4, or I need to come up with a better shirt that customers would be willing to pay $8 for. Either way, consumers end up benefitting by having more $4 shirts on the market, or an option of purchasing a better shirt.

Where the debate comes in is whether or not I would go out of business while trying to figure that out. If I support the tariff I'm saying I can't make shirts for $4. So which is it? Can I truly not make them for $4, or am I just saying that because me and my employees dont' want to take paycuts?


As I listed above, it seems our three options are to enact tariffs, remove certain regulations, or convince people to buy American. Which of the three policies do you think we should try, or is there a fourth I'm missing?

Like I was telling WH, it depends on the specific situation. Generally speaking though I prefer seeing companies given the incentive to innovate and be more efficient, with government doing what it can to minimize the number of obstacles in it's way. That's why I'm an ardent opponent to cap and trade. If it comes to pass it's going to be a nightmare for the American manufacturing sector.

One thing we can depend on though, convincing people to buy American doesn't work. The American consumer doesn't have it any easier than the American worker so we're going to buy whatever we perceive to be the best value. If there's two equal products we're going to buy the one that's cheaper and we don't care who made it.

[ChumpDumper]

LOL What? You have never brought up that Japan having universal health-care is a boon for their companies and you sure as hell aren't doing it here.They have innovative and high-quality death panels.

[DarrinS]

LOL What? You have never brought up that Japan having universal health-care is a boon for their companies and you sure as hell aren't doing it here.


I didn't say that -- but I did say that these other companies might not have all the legacy costs that a GM or Ford has.


By the way, I have direct experience in losing a job in manufacturing. I could've sat around and felt sorry for myself, but I decided to put myself through school and look for greener pastures.

[DarkReign]

What are you talking about? There will always be manufacturing jobs as long as the world needs it. No one is advocating the elimination of anything.

What you need to realize is that as the world moves forward and manufacturing becomes more efficient those jobs are eliminated simply as a matter of course. It then becomes necessary for a society to adapt and find ways for those people to become employable of simply flounder.

Is it elitist that we no longer employee anyone using or making a fucking cotton gin? No, its progress.

So, car tires equate to a cotton gin?

And what about those 2100 jobs lost to the state of Georgia?

We just...let that happen in the name of someone's definition of progress?

Or are these the same people who feel sorry, or worse, contempt for those who do not hold college degrees?

In a system that doesnt lend itself well to anything nearing education.

Look, you (Manny) can say "We need to better our education system if we're going to compete" (paraphrased). Which is true.

But until that happens (ie fucking never), what then? Just....

...

what?

[LnGrrrR]

We're not throwing up our hands at manufacturing as a nation. Where do you guys come up with this? Its not like the wizard of oz is sitting behind some curtain in DC pulling a lever that is marked "cut manufacturing".

There are many reasons for this happening and they are reasons you likely can't stop. The rest of the world was not going to stay farmers and pheasants forever simply for America's liking.

At this point you make a choice. You either try to desperately hold onto those jobs or you adapt. Holding onto those jobs doesn't sound like a hell of an option unless the American worker is willing to start working for a hell of a lot less.

Hey, I'm doing my part! It's one of the reasons I joined the military.. for education and to learn a skill.

However, what should we do if American manufacturing can't seem to compete with overseas? Do we use protectionism? Or do we just accept it, and hope Americans will start becoming educated for the 'next' jobs coming down the pipe?

[DarrinS]

We should of course be moving towards an economy that is less reliant on old manufacturing jobs and more cutting edge. The sad fact is that we're not going there because our population is unskilled in the trades that matter for that type of an economy and its not getting better.


Agreed. But don't foret, we're always going to need people that know how to do plumbing, electrical, drywall, masonry, etc. etc.




We're not preparing our children to keep the US at the forefront of innovation, science and technology. The graduates we produce are not in the right fields and are not good enough to move this economy forward and completely away from manufacturing jobs. As much as we'd like to move into the future we're just too fucking stupid to do it.

Fortunately, our country tends to attract a lot of smart people from other countries. It's disappointing that we appear to be producing fewer and fewer homegrown scientists, engineers, and doctors.

[Winehole23]

We're not throwing up our hands at manufacturing as a nation. Where do you guys come up with this? Its not like the wizard of oz is sitting behind some curtain in DC pulling a lever that is marked "cut manufacturing".

There are many reasons for this happening and they are reasons you likely can't stop. The rest of the world was not going to stay farmers and pheasants forever simply for America's liking.

At this point you make a choice. You either try to desperately hold onto those jobs or you adapt. Holding onto those jobs doesn't sound like a hell of an option unless the American worker is willing to start working for a hell of a lot less.The transition to industrialism was more or less commonsensical, if also disruptive and painful.

What's the *new* productive base in your opinion Manny, and how do we adapt to it?

[MannyIsGod]

So, car tires equate to a cotton gin?

And what about those 2100 jobs lost to the state of Georgia?

We just...let that happen in the name of someone's definition of progress?

Or are these the same people who feel sorry, or worse, contempt for those who do not hold college degrees?

In a system that doesnt lend itself well to anything nearing education.

Look, you (Manny) can say "We need to better our education system if we're going to compete" (paraphrased). Which is true.

But until that happens (ie fucking never), what then? Just....

...

what?

Until it happens we suffer. You can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink. If this country does not have the will to take the steps to move forward then it will suffer.

Does making car tires equate to making a cotton gin? Not totally since car tires are still used a great deal and the cotton gin is gone but the fact of the matter is that progress will happen whether you want it to or not. Trying to hold it back is futile.

I think it sucks for those people in Georgia and I hope they're all able to land on their feet, but the idea that we try to protect every manufacturing job in this country is one that is simply unsustainable when people overseas are making tires for much cheaper.

You and WH both have said we just "let that happen in the name of progress" a couple of times in this thread. Its not that we're letting it happen its that we can't stop it from happening.

[LnGrrrR]

Where the debate comes in is whether or not I would go out of business while trying to figure that out. If I support the tariff I'm saying I can't make shirts for $4. So which is it? Can I truly not make them for $4, or am I just saying that because me and my employees dont' want to take paycuts?

Right, which is where I see this argument going. Heck, unless the shirt gives you a BJ, I can't see any way that American companies could compete with Chinese workers who make an average annual salary of $1500.

Let's say we took my former example, but instead of charging a $2 tariff, we charged a 4$ tariff. By doing so, we'd reserve the prices of the shirts, American being $4 now and Chinese being $8. What would be your objections to this?


Like I was telling WH, it depends on the specific situation. Generally speaking though I prefer seeing companies given the incentive to innovate and be more efficient, with government doing what it can to minimize the number of obstacles in it's way. That's why I'm an ardent opponent to cap and trade. If it comes to pass it's going to be a nightmare for the American manufacturing sector.

I don't enough about cap and trade; looks like it's time for me to do some reading.


One thing we can depend on though, convincing people to buy American doesn't work. The American consumer doesn't have it any easier than the American worker so we're going to buy whatever we perceive to be the best value. If there's two equal products we're going to buy the one that's cheaper and we don't care who made it.

Agreed.

[DarrinS]

So, car tires equate to a cotton gin?

And what about those 2100 jobs lost to the state of Georgia?




Maybe they can go work at the Toyota or Kia plant.

[Winehole23]

Also, what makes you so sure that manufacturingas a productive base is "outmoded", besides the flight of capital to cheaper conditions?

[DarkReign]

Cmon DR... I'm sure it's not just engineers. I think we need more doctors and scientists too.

/snark

Honestly, I don't think Americans getting more educated is a bad thing at all. But I certainly don't think we should just throw up our hands and forgo manufacturing. Hence the reason I like this tariff idea.

Honestly now, think about the raw numbers (which I admittedly do not have)...

The proposal, form those here, seems to be we replace labor intensive jobs with professional jobs.

Sounds great, I agree.

But wholly and totally unrealistic in every sense the word has ever been used.

First and foremost, we arent a European nation with population 40 million. Add a zero.

Second, the education system is broken, has been for nearly a century. This will never change....ever. Like as in, education has as much chance of rearranging itself to be even remotely helpful to the end game you guys propose (ie more professionals) as the Sun has of never burning out.

Third, here is the kicker that nobody likes to talk about...

Not everyone is smart! GASP! The horror!

You mean all men arent created equally? No kid, they arent. Some are smarter, some are stronger, some are both, some are even better than that.

But if you take a population of 400 million, you can bet at least 10% of them are complete simpleton morons. Look around you, you dont have to be a calc major to notice this fact. It isnt lack of education or parenting, its most of the time lack of brain power from birth. Theyre not smart, they'll never be smart and no amount of tutoring/teaching/coddling will ever change this.

To be honest, I think I am being conservative with 10%.

[Winehole23]

If we'd allowed that in the 19th century, America industry wouldn't have gotten off the ground.

[LnGrrrR]

You and WH both have said we just "let that happen in the name of progress" a couple of times in this thread. Its not that we're letting it happen its that we can't stop it from happening.

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but it seemed the point of the OP was that we could at least ease up somewhat on the manufacturers with a tariff. Of course, if we don't innovate, we'll stagnate. But tariffs would be a way to try to at least bleed out slowly.

[MannyIsGod]

The transition to industrialism was more or less commonsensical, if also disruptive and painful.

What's the *new* productive base in your opinion Manny, and how do we adapt to it?

Well one reason it seems more painful in our lifetimes is because the world is "speeding up". Changes that took generations before now happen much faster.

The new production is in ideas. Where the industrial barons at the previous turn of the century made their money in manufacturing and basic industrial production the richest men today are those that were able to capitalize on information in one way or another. They didn't go out and discover an oil field they developed an application or invented a faster microprocessor. This is where we go from now.

[LnGrrrR]

Not everyone is smart! GASP! The horror!

You mean all men arent created equally? No kid, they arent. Some are smarter, some are stronger, some are both, some are even better than that.

But if you take a population of 400 million, you can bet at least 10% of them are complete simpleton morons. Look around you, you dont have to be a calc major to notice this fact. It isnt lack of education or parenting, its most of the time lack of brain power from birth. Theyre not smart, they'll never be smart and no amount of tutoring/teaching/coddling will ever change this.

To be honest, I think I am being conservative with 10%.

I think that's the point Manny and Darrin are both saying. Yes, there are idiots, and they won't be able to keep pace. That doesn't mean we should try to protect their jobs at the expense of other things. It's their fault for not educating themself enough to get such a job.

And if they're too dumb to educate themselves to that degree, then why should America slow down for them? Survival of the fittest, and all that.

It's somewhat callous, but it does have a libertarian ring to it.

[MannyIsGod]

Also, what makes you so sure that manufacturingas a productive base is "outmoded", besides the flight of capital to cheaper conditions?

Do we really need more of a reason?

[DarkReign]

Until it happens we suffer. You can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink. If this country does not have the will to take the steps to move forward then it will suffer.

Does making car tires equate to making a cotton gin? Not totally since car tires are still used a great deal and the cotton gin is gone but the fact of the matter is that progress will happen whether you want it to or not. Trying to hold it back is futile.

I think it sucks for those people in Georgia and I hope they're all able to land on their feet, but the idea that we try to protect every manufacturing job in this country is one that is simply unsustainable when people overseas are making tires for much cheaper.

You and WH both have said we just "let that happen in the name of progress" a couple of times in this thread. Its not that we're letting it happen its that we can't stop it from happening.

Well, I like your idea in theory, I really do.

But what you propose is a zero sum game. This country does not and will not ever educate its populace to the level your proposed Professional Economy would need to sustain itself.

More over, and this I ask honestly, what are the professionals selling that the world is buying, exactly?

What can lawyer sell?
What can a scientist sell that cant be pirated?
Same question for an engineer, sure you can design it and hold copyright, but what makes everyone think the world is just going to abide that US IP law?

This is what baffles me. Its what baffles me about people that think a society full of bankers/lawyers/scientists/engineers would even work. They dont sell shit the world will even buy.

And lets just say you had something of value, it would just be copied and reproduced by the rest of the world with no value given to you.

Like nuclear technology. That was one GIANT intellectual property the US had there....for about 5 years (iirc).

[DarrinS]

Didn't Intel and AMD create a shitload of manufacturing jobs that didn't exist prior to the invention of PC's?

That's an area where the US still dominates, right?

Who's to say a newer technology won't come along that will create even more jobs.

[MannyIsGod]

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but it seemed the point of the OP was that we could at least ease up somewhat on the manufacturers with a tariff. Of course, if we don't innovate, we'll stagnate. But tariffs would be a way to try to at least bleed out slowly.

The conversation has evolved to a much broader approach than the OP.

I get the point of the tariff I just don't believe it will be effective in securing any American jobs. If it was, I would probably be more in favor of it but I just think we're going to see the Chinese tire prices go up. That doesn't necessarily mean we'll buy American tires because Chinese and American tires aren't the only ones in the marke

[DarrinS]

I think that's the point Manny and Darrin are both saying. Yes, there are idiots, and they won't be able to keep pace. That doesn't mean we should try to protect their jobs at the expense of other things. It's their fault for not educating themself enough to get such a job.

And if they're too dumb to educate themselves to that degree, then why should America slow down for them? Survival of the fittest, and all that.

It's somewhat callous, but it does have a libertarian ring to it.


Things change and sometimes we are powerless to stop it. That is a huge point that Manny brought up. Robots do spot welding on assembly lines and replace people. Sucks for the guy that lost his job, but that's progress.

[Winehole23]

Who's to say a newer technology won't come along that will create even more jobs.It could happen. And I could win the lottery tomorrow. (fingers crossed)

[DarrinS]

It could happen. And I could win the lottery tomorrow. (fingers crossed)


I have about the same odds of winning if I don't buy a ticket.

[Winehole23]

What can lawyer sell?

What can a scientist sell that cant be pirated?

Same question for an engineer, sure you can design it and hold copyright, but what makes everyone think the world is just going to abide that US IP law?This.

[SpurNation]

Nah. we've basically become fat and/or lazy and spoiled. People in third world or communist countries don't know or have privelages to those concepts.

Also our government programs that were originally brought about to help the truly needy have turned into mainly providing for those who don't want to work.

As a consumer...would you buy product that cost more because of being made in the US compared to product that costs less made in China or elsewhere?

Myself...I just might if the amount of taxes I have to pay would leave more of my dollar in my pocket. But hey...it is becoming more and more relevant that we don't even have the option to buy American.

[MannyIsGod]

I think that's the point Manny and Darrin are both saying. Yes, there are idiots, and they won't be able to keep pace. That doesn't mean we should try to protect their jobs at the expense of other things. It's their fault for not educating themself enough to get such a job.

And if they're too dumb to educate themselves to that degree, then why should America slow down for them? Survival of the fittest, and all that.

It's somewhat callous, but it does have a libertarian ring to it.

Hmm, I'm not saying that exactly. I believe there is a shit ton of room for improvement in our countries education system and I beleive that our population can be much smarter as a whole. I see it in other countries and the population is irrelevant unless you believe that larger countries are somehow less intelligent?

I believe its up to our society as a whole to secure its future because you can't hold onto the past. We either will do that or we won't. I don't think that has anything to do with being callous because I believe that's the simple truth. Even if you wanted to sugar coat it, how do you go about doing so?

[Winehole23]

I believe its up to our society as a whole to secure its future because you can't hold onto the past. We either will do that or we won't. I don't think that has anything to do with being callous because I believe that's the simple truth. Even if you wanted to sugar coat it, how do you go about doing so?This doesn't preclude protecting our asses for the foreseeable present IMO.

[MannyIsGod]

Well, I like your idea in theory, I really do.

But what you propose is a zero sum game. This country does not and will not ever educate its populace to the level your proposed Professional Economy would need to sustain itself.

More over, and this I ask honestly, what are the professionals selling that the world is buying, exactly?

What can lawyer sell?
What can a scientist sell that cant be pirated?
Same question for an engineer, sure you can design it and hold copyright, but what makes everyone think the world is just going to abide that US IP law?

This is what baffles me. Its what baffles me about people that think a society full of bankers/lawyers/scientists/engineers would even work. They dont sell shit the world will even buy.

And lets just say you had something of value, it would just be copied and reproduced by the rest of the world with no value given to you.

Like nuclear technology. That was one GIANT intellectual property the US had there....for about 5 years (iirc).

You can say that about everything. We invented the airplane and the car yet other people around the world make those as well, correct?

[DarrinS]

One out of every five persons in the world is Chinese.



This doesn't help either.

[MannyIsGod]

This doesn't preclude protecting our asses for the foreseeable present IMO.

No, it doesn't. But when is someone going to come along and actually make the changes for the long term? We've been trying to avoid the short term job losses for as long as I can remember without making an actual effort to prepare for the long term because we're so focused on the present.

Also, that's assuming we're capable of protecting ourselves. What good does this protection do us if we gain nothing from it?

[DarrinS]

We invented the airplane and the car yet other people around the world make those as well, correct?


I think that was his point.

And I believe Karl Benz invented the automobile. (Not trying to be a smartass)

[MannyIsGod]

DR, what do you believe should be done? I've seen you be critical of the elimination of manufacturing jobs in this country but I'm wondering what your view on saving them is?

[LnGrrrR]

Hmm, I'm not saying that exactly. I believe there is a shit ton of room for improvement in our countries education system and I beleive that our population can be much smarter as a whole. I see it in other countries and the population is irrelevant unless you believe that larger countries are somehow less intelligent?

I believe its up to our society as a whole to secure its future because you can't hold onto the past. We either will do that or we won't. I don't think that has anything to do with being callous because I believe that's the simple truth. Even if you wanted to sugar coat it, how do you go about doing so?

That's why I didn't mention the population in my quoted marks. I agree that higher education is necessary, but I think there will also be a need for American manufacturing. I like to have backups at home, in case we piss everyone off abroad. :lol

[LnGrrrR]

You can say that about everything. We invented the airplane and the car yet other people around the world make those as well, correct?

Technically, we didn't invent the car... or at the least, we invented it the same time the Germans did. We did invent the assembly line though.

[LnGrrrR]

I think that was his point.

And I believe Karl Benz invented the automobile. (Not trying to be a smartass)

LOL I see you beat me to it. :toast

[LnGrrrR]

To DarrinS and Manny;

Ok, I will give it to you that America needs to get smarter for future techie jobs.

With this as a given, two questions.

1) Do you think we should try to ease the bleeding using some form of protectionism or not?

2) If you answered yes for the first question, why not use tariffs as a means?

[SpurNation]

No, it doesn't. But when is someone going to come along and actually make the changes for the long term? We've been trying to avoid the short term job losses for as long as I can remember without making an actual effort to prepare for the long term because we're so focused on the present.

Also, that's assuming we're capable of protecting ourselves. What good does this protection do us if we gain nothing from it?

Our internal bickering almost makes this impossible to achieve.

[MannyIsGod]

To DarrinS and Manny;

Ok, I will give it to you that America needs to get smarter for future techie jobs.

With this as a given, two questions.

1) Do you think we should try to ease the bleeding using some form of protectionism or not?

2) If you answered yes for the first question, why not use tariffs as a means?


If protectionism actually works then maybe. Saving 2000 jobs is great if you can do it, but you have to also factor in the cost. If it costs 100,000 Americans extra money to spend on those items is that money that is no longer being spent on another companies items?

[DarrinS]

To DarrinS and Manny;

Ok, I will give it to you that America needs to get smarter for future techie jobs.

With this as a given, two questions.

1) Do you think we should try to ease the bleeding using some form of protectionism or not?

2) If you answered yes for the first question, why not use tariffs as a means?



I guess I would be for it if I actually thought it would help. With the economy the way it is, people are just getting more frugal.

[Winehole23]

No, it doesn't. But when is someone going to come along and actually make the changes for the long term? We've been trying to avoid the short term job losses for as long as I can remember without making an actual effort to prepare for the long term because we're so focused on the present.True. Maybe the lack of a tangible political payoff in the present has something to do with it. Politicians no less than citizens have short attention spans. It's a shame. We're already paying for it.

[Winehole23]

Do we really need more of a reason?More of one than stale piffle about the march of progress and "new economy" claptrap, yeah.

[DarkReign]

You can say that about everything. We invented the airplane and the car yet other people around the world make those as well, correct?

..and be honest now, Manny.

Do you think there is going to be some technological advantage like making airplanes that could even possibly supplant the portion of the US economy dedicated to the manufacture of sellable goods currently produced?

Airplanes, even if the US economy made every single plane flying the skies, wouldnt amount to shit on a shingle. You could add every train, every bus, every mode of transportation and it wouldnt amount to maybe half the US economy as it currently sits.

This is the very definition of too big to fail.

[DarkReign]

DR, what do you believe should be done? I've seen you be critical of the elimination of manufacturing jobs in this country but I'm wondering what your view on saving them is?

Fair question.

My opinion on the matter is simple and broad. There is no nation capable of existence without the means to sell the fruits of their production.

This holds true, whether through war or enterpise, throughout history.

We, as a nation, cannot exist on the fruits of scientific endeavor alone. To pretend that we can is oblivious, to be honest.

Its the pinnacle of arrogance, imo, that we should feel so compelled in the first place. Countries like India, although far different in every way, whom export professional-class employees like Korea does electronics, do not even pretend such independence. Thats why American manufacturers find favorable profit conditions in relation to an equivalent in the States.

Their standard of living and cost of living is FAR lower than the US can maintain competitively (currently, we are being conditioned to accept otherwise though). We either raise theirs or lower ours, simple. The former is best left to TheoryWorld and the latter is actually believable, as sad as that is.

There is no easy solution, unless of course we emulate another model that requires a large portion of your country's (under)grad students be exported to other countries for their superior education opportunities.

My point is, we either protect what we have currently, via tariffs and/or other means, or we watch the foundation of our economic superiority fall under a false pretense of an inadequately suited population as judged by people who fancy themselves intellectuals with favorable views about the future.

Prognostication is best left to gypsies, especially in the face of an unprecedented economic situation that cannot be judged thoroughly at this point. People need to start preparing for "worst case scenario" and the longer this reality is put off, just the same as our elected leadership pretends on a sessional basis, the harder this reality is going to kick us in the collective groin.

To be clear and not so vague, our relationship with China/3rd world economies is a fleeting one. The end game is not in doubt with the current ruleset, it will lead to the utter collapse of this nation.

Especially when the purported solution is egaltarian rubbish about raising the education bar in this country in pretty much 20 years at bare minimum (to stay competitive). I wonder if one considers that 20 years is a grand total just less than two graduating generations, hardly enough time to save the empire.

Ive argued with, I believe 101A, on protectionist policies and iirc, I came away with no internal resolution. Let me say that I am not adverse to the reasonings of another perspective, but said perspective had better have more substance and short-to-midterm gain than the one offered here. Its the longview but its also the deferred, kick-the-can method employed by this country in every one of its short term problems in an effort to prolong the present.

I dont particularly like protectionism, but the reprecussions associated with the mention of reduced industrialization arent being given their full-weight in an argument with another who doesnt agree upon its severe importance.

[MannyIsGod]

..and be honest now, Manny.

Do you think there is going to be some technological advantage like making airplanes that could even possibly supplant the portion of the US economy dedicated to the manufacture of sellable goods currently produced?

Airplanes, even if the US economy made every single plane flying the skies, wouldnt amount to shit on a shingle. You could add every train, every bus, every mode of transportation and it wouldnt amount to maybe half the US economy as it currently sits.

This is the very definition of too big to fail.

I don't know, Dark. I do know that we won't be able to compete with making things with other countries when their populations are willing to do it for much less. I do know that as technology has improved the efficiency of a single worker is now enough to accomplish what took many workers in the past thereby eliminating jobs. I do know that manufacturing has been declining here for quite some time and that it isn't a policy decision by anyone but simple economics.

I've never said we're going to come out of this a better country or that everyone will be better off. I've said its an inevitable problem so you'd better do your damned best to adapt to it. Our country is hanging by a rope that is frayed and coming undone and instead of trying to climb up it we're trying to knit it back together so we can keep hanging.

[LnGrrrR]

Here's a thought too. If we were to institute tariffs, would more employers keep factories here rather than shipping them overseas, thereby creating more jobs?

[DarrinS]

It should be noted that China did not pass the US to become the number one exporter -- they passed Germany to become the number one exporter.

[coyotes_geek]

Here's a thought too. If we were to institute tariffs, would more employers keep factories here rather than shipping them overseas, thereby creating more jobs?

Depends. If the cost savings between producing goods overseas and producing goods here isn't all that much then tariffs could be used to make it financially beneficial for employers to keep jobs in the U.S. If the cost difference is big enough then tariffs lose their effectiveness because you're stuck having to choose between placing a tariff that is so high that it will kill consumer demand for the product, or one that isn't big enough to negate all of the cost savings from going overseas. That's an equation that's going to vary company by company, product by product.

[DarkReign]

I don't know, Dark. I do know that we won't be able to compete with making things with other countries when their populations are willing to do it for much less. I do know that as technology has improved the efficiency of a single worker is now enough to accomplish what took many workers in the past thereby eliminating jobs. I do know that manufacturing has been declining here for quite some time and that it isn't a policy decision by anyone but simple economics.

I've never said we're going to come out of this a better country or that everyone will be better off. I've said its an inevitable problem so you'd better do your damned best to adapt to it. Our country is hanging by a rope that is frayed and coming undone and instead of trying to climb up it we're trying to knit it back together so we can keep hanging.

Eh, youre right. Youre absolutely right. I never disagreed with your premise, what you say has always been true, that our country had better learn to adapt to a changing marketplace.

What I disagree with you on is the means to change that, or to be more clear, how to stem the inevitable of our current path.

You seem (correct me if I am wrong) to think any action to keep manufacturing inside our own borders as counter-productive or maybe even irrational.

Whereas I see manufacturing as absolutely necessary in every sense of the word.

It doesnt make me right and you wrong, its just a completely divergent opinion on the impact of a country that only produces its weapons of war, buying everything else from somewhere else with wealth created by.....?

[Winehole23]

It doesnt make me right and you wrong, its just a completely divergent opinion on the impact of a country that only produces its weapons of war, buying everything else from somewhere else with wealth created by.....?The Chinese glut of savings and debt bubbles.

Oops. The bubble burst. That leaves us with only the Chinese and the Fed.