Reply With Quote
LOL... No kidding. Funny the way threads around here get lost.
GPS anyone?
I'm just pointing out that redistribution of wealth and the distribution of wealth are 2 different things. Trade only affects the latter. I'm against NAFTA because of the sovereignty issue first, and because of the industry loss that has taken place in the free trade era.
Yes, it would. It's the fault of the whole free trade movement, of which NAFTA is just a part.This would happen with or without NAFTA.
It's not compe ion; it's wage differences. I doubt a foreign person can make a product any better or worse than an American could in most cases. All this is about (besides the globalizaion movement) is the international corporations getting rid of their American workers for cheaper labor. That's it. That's not good for the country as a whole. Saving some money on certain consumer goods does not make up for that.So you want the that American companies produce in China, made in the US paying 10 times more in wages, which in turn would make the product much more expensive, simply to maintian some American worker's job?
Not a lover of compe ion, are you?
Yes, because you didn't answer my question. Who helped us in the ways that you think the USA is supposed to help all the other developing countries? Also, we aren't the only country that has a good geographic location and natural resources. And development caused the migratory waves, not the other way around. Migration follows development everywhere.Economic conditions in the XIX Century, geographic location, natural resources, migratory waves . . . shall I continue?
The USA is the only country that uses subsidies and tariffs in ways that other countries don't like? You could make that complaint about everybody.For starters, stop subsidizing the out of your farm products, stop putting tariffs on products based on phony allegations of dumping.
LOL... No kidding. Funny the way threads around here get lost.
GPS anyone?
The US is part of the world. If the rest of the world is going global, i.e. producing where it is more beneficial and efficient for them, the US has to follow the trend. Otherwise, it will miss the boat.
So you don't want foreign companies being installed in the US and hiring American workers?Yes, it would. It's the fault of the whole free trade movement, of which NAFTA is just a part.
Free trade works both ways. Some American workers suffer from it, other benefit.
Which means some countries are more compe ve than others. Exactly my point.It's not compe ion; it's wage differences.
It works both ways. Japanese workers could complain Toyota is installing factories in the US and giving American auto-workers jobs which could be given to Japanese workers.All this is about (besides the globalizaion movement) is the international corporations getting rid of their American workers for cheaper labor.
Yes, because you didn't answer my question. Who helped us in the ways that you think the USA is supposed to help all the other developing countries?
I'm not saying the US is supposed to help anybody the same way Bill Gates is supposed to help anybody either. It's up to the US or Gates to do it if the feel like it.
Name the underdeveloped countries that were lucky enough to enjoy the same set of cir stances the US faced in the XIX Century.Also, we aren't the only country that has a good geographic location and natural resources.
I have complained to many developed nations in numerous threads. Europe and Japan apply huge amounts of subsidies and have rediculous tariff barriers.The USA is the only country that uses subsidies and tariffs in ways that other countries don't like? You could make that complaint about everybody.
I am skeptical, but one that believes the USA can compete globally if we rearranged our tax structures to match what the other first world countries are doing...
Consumption taxes rather than income taxes...
USA product export: Productivity taxed during manufacturing then taxed at sale of foreign country... taxed twice effectively
Import to USA: No tax during manufacturing and no tax at sale (except state sales tax)... Effectively no tax compared to export!
We need to go for the Fair Tax...
God help us if we go to a taxation system like Europe. England
with the 20 percent Value Added Tax (VAT). Plus income tax,
plus all their other taxes. Tax even to watch TV, BBC must be
supported. I honestly don't see how those people make it and
many don't. They live off the dole. Their medical care sucks and
keeps getting cut back and doctors refusing to treat people
because they have habits they disapprove of. Terminally ill
people sent home with no medical care at all. Hospitals closed
because they don't have money to keep them open.
GOOD!
The US is part of the world. If the rest of the world is going global, i.e. producing where it is more beneficial and efficient for them, the US has to follow the trend. Otherwise, it will miss the boat
Well, go with the approximate 20% consumption tax, and no income tax. We would need to tax as high as England, maybe higher, if we had Universal Health Care!
Remember, with taxed taken out of the equation during manufacturing, prices will drop. Then the taxation makes the retail price about the same.... except for imports, which will get more expensive...
PUT HIM IN A BODY BAG JOHNNY!!!
And only white people are racists, and only men are sexists, blah blah blah.I'm not rich, how can I be selfish? Selfish is being rich
There's nothing inherently evil about being rich, and all of us are selfish to a degree. Most of us aren't rich to any degree.
WOW!
Selective quoting . . .
This is what I said:
Not
Talk about twisting .Selfish is being rich
Good what?
So you basically want that Americans only produce manufactured goods in America, and that non Americans only produce outside America.
Pretty stupid and unrealistic idea, mookster.
Actually, I didn't selectively misquote - I misread it. My apologies.Selfish is being rich and developed country and not helping other countries develop
I'm used to American liberals claiming that selfishness, racism, and sexism only goes one way that when I first read your quote, I thought it was more of the same.
To those who do feel that way (not you, smeagol), my message stands.
I am not really sure what you mean by a consumption tax,
I think you are referring to the ultimate buyer. I have
heard that argument before and some have said it would
only have to be in the 2-3 percent range. I honestly
don't know. But if you are talking about a value added
tax that is passed on at every step of a consumer goods
life. From raw goods to manufacturing to wholesale to
merchant to consumer. One of the reasons for high
cost of living in UK.
The 2-3 percent range these folks speak of are based on
all products sold/bought in the U.S. But you know this
will not happen because of the argument that it would
be unfair to the poor.
If you like reading and are interested in the subject matter, read HR 25 and a book called The Fair Tax.
Fair Tax Book
HR 25
wiki: Fair Tax
Okay back to trade...
Toyota has factories in North America to sell their product to North American consumers. It's about trade logistics. A Japanese company is setting up shop in a foreign market to sell to that market.
Now, compare that situation to the companies that take their production out of the US and move it to China or Mexico or other low wage countries. They are not setting up shop in those countries to sell their products to the citizens of that country. They are only there to take advantage of the low wages in that country. Those products are made to be sold in the US. So you have the benefit of lower consumer prices versus the cost of lost manufacturing jobs. The costs obviously outweigh the benefits. Everyone knows that for the blue collar labor sector, manufacturing and construction wages are much higher than service wages.
That is not compe ion. It's simply taking advantage of foreign sweat shop labor at the expense of US labor. Maquiladoras aren't more efficient than US factories. The reasons why it is cheaper to operate in those factories are the same reasons why the conditions there are often terrible.
What are those cir stances?Name the underdeveloped countries that were lucky enough to enjoy the same set of cir stances the US faced in the XIX Century.
A country has every right to protect its national interests and industries and to favor the labor of its own citizens over the labor of foreigners.I have complained to many developed nations in numerous threads. Europe and Japan apply huge amounts of subsidies and have rediculous tariff barriers.
Last edited by BradLohaus; 10-20-2007 at 04:40 AM.
So you are telling me the car production in the US is only for domestic consumption? The Toyota, Mazda, Honda, the Koreans manufacturing in the US don't export any of its production?
I'll research that but I don't think it is the case.
I know for a fact, even though Argentina produces cars, there are a lot of imports from Brasil, Mexico and even Europe. And Argentina exporta lots of Fords, GMs, etc.
Now, compare that situation to the companies that take their production out of the US and move it to China or Mexico or other low wage countries. They are not setting up shop in those countries to sell their products to the citizens of that country. They are only there to take advantage of the low wages in that country. Those products are made to be sold in the US. So you have the benefit of lower consumer prices versus the cost of lost manufacturing jobs. The costs obviously outweigh the benefits. Everyone knows that for the blue collar labor sector, manufacturing and construction wages are much higher than service wages.
Do you want to live in the World? Then you have to accept globalization.
In summary, you want the US to export it's products and benefit from additional profits generated abroad, i.e., foreigners buying US manufactured products, but you don't want those foreigners to benefit from that production by way of being employed by US companies which are installed overseas?
Got it.
That is not compe ion. It's simply taking advantage of foreign sweat shop labor at the expense of US labor.
It is companies trying to be efficient. It is called capitalism. And the US is the champion of exporting Capitalism.
Maquiladoras aren't more efficient than US factories.
Yes they are. They pay cheaper wages to it's labor force who can be as efficient or more efficient than the more expensive US workers.
They pay less for its power, less for its raw materials and probably have a smaller tax burden.
Or why do you think maquiladoras are set up? Because they are cheaper than setting those same factories up in the US.
The reasons why it is cheaper to operate in those factories are the same reasons why the conditions there are often terrible.
This is a half truth. Go to a many US maquiladoras in Mexico and you'll find out working conditions are as good as in the US. Go to a GM or Ford plant.
I have already stated them. Abundant land and natural resources, migratory waves, etcWhat are those cir stances?
A country has every right to protect its national interests and industries and to favor the labor of its own citizens over the labor of foreigners.
So you want all manufactured goods produced by US companies manufactured in the US, and you want to create barriers of entry for all other foreign manufactured products?
Talk about an islationist of the worst kind.
You should have been born at the turn of the XIX Century. You would've been a habppy man voting for Wilson.
only a globalist would say something like thatDo you want to live in the World? Then you have to accept globalization.
The more I learn about it the more I realize Globalization is completely inevitable, our only hope is that the middle class can wake up and start voting together domestically on politicians and laws that will help protect us from wallowing in our own vomit of debt and overpriced living.
one day you and smeagols entire paycheck of 5000 Reagan$ will be going straight to exxonwalmart
you work for your lender in a cashless society
What has this comment to do with the topic we are discussing?
Is globalist a bad word?
The only thing that is making globalization inevitable is the fact that the elite power brokers in the West all want it. By the way, here is the definition of globalism:
the at ude or policy of placing the interests of the entire world above those of individual nations.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/globalism
Why would any sane person support a movement like that? Favor a policy that hurts your own citizens just because others in the world benefit from it?
Basically, I want US trade policy to use tariffs to account for wage differences between the US and foreign countries - the main source of the so-called increased "compe iveness" of the workers in those countries. Other differences need to be accounted for as well, such as mandatory environmental protections in the US that don't exist in countries such as China and Mexico - another thing that increases the "compe veness" of those countries.In summary, you want the US to export it's products and benefit from additional profits generated abroad, i.e., foreigners buying US manufactured products, but you don't want those foreigners to benefit from that production by way of being employed by US companies which are installed overseas?
It's a myth that capitalism and free trade are somehow related. In fact, Karl Marx was a big fan of free trade:It is companies trying to be efficient. It is called capitalism. And the US is the champion of exporting Capitalism.
I doubt you'll find that quote in any modern, pro free trade economics textbook.
Yes, as I've been saying, American companies just want to shed their American workers for cheaper foreign labor. That is bad for the US worker whose job is shipped out of the country. That isn't some kind of inevitability that the US is powerless to stop, and it's not capitalism, either.Yes they are. They pay cheaper wages to it's labor force who can be as efficient or more efficient than the more expensive US workers.
They pay less for its power, less for its raw materials and probably have a smaller tax burden.
Or why do you think maquiladoras are set up? Because they are cheaper than setting those same factories up in the US.
Even if it's a half truth, that's still pretty bad. I did a quick search and found this http://www.cfomaquiladoras.org/renovadoasalto-en.htmThis is a half truth. Go to a many US maquiladoras in Mexico and you'll find out working conditions are as good as in the US. Go to a GM or Ford plant.
I'm sure it's one of many examples.
Again, many nations now and throughout history have had abundant land and natural resouces. And the US would have never had waves of immigrants that continue today if the country wasn't developed or quickly developing before the immigrants arrived.I have already stated them. Abundant land and natural resources, migratory waves, etc
First of all, Wislon was a 20th century president, and he was very much a pro free trade globalist. He was probably the worst president this country has ever had. Yes, even worse than the current one. And the previous one.So you want all manufactured goods produced by US companies manufactured in the US, and you want to create barriers of entry for all other foreign manufactured products?
Talk about an islationist of the worst kind.
You should have been born at the turn of the XIX Century. You would've been a habppy man voting for Wilson.
Secondly, here are some stats about the US economy from the highly protectionist late 19th century:
--From 1869 to 1900 the GNP quadrupled
--In the same time period, customs duties provided 58% of all federal revenue
--There was no income tax, except for Lincoln's wartime tax and Grover Cleveland's short lived 2% flat tax on the rich, which was declared uncons utional
--Real wages, despite a doubling of the US population, rose 53%
--There are more, but I'll leave it at that
You compared my economic thoughts to those of the 19th century, and I thank you for the compliment.
By the way: Republicans dominated the White House during this period, as they were the ones who strongly advocated protectionism. From 1861 to 1913 - 52 years - there was only one Democratic president. Then comes Woodrow Wilson, the permanent income tax, the Federal Reserve, the Great Depression, and a permanent big government from both parties. Food for thought.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions