Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 51 to 75 of 100
  1. #51
    Talk is cheap and so is Holt! Peter's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Post Count
    1,732
    What about the cost of living? Anyways, if we want to ensure that wages remain stagnant going forward we can follow the protectionist course.

    Also, '00 to '05? I'd say the period selected had a bit to do with that study's findings.

  2. #52
    Believe. BradLohaus's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Post Count
    1,343
    What about the cost of living?
    It's rising. Inflation + lower real wages = higher cost of living

    Anyways, if we want to ensure that wages remain stagnant going forward we can follow the protectionist course.
    The globalists have made quite an effort to get people to believe that. But even if it was true, stagnant real wages (don't forget the "real" part) would be an improvement over the declining ones that globalization has given us.

    Also, '00 to '05? I'd say the period selected had a bit to do with that study's findings.
    The study was done by an organization that has alot of influence and has used it to push globalization ever forward. So don't think that they are trying to hide any benefits of globalization. There are benefits; we just don't get them. A small percentage gets them, and we get the costs. If the writers of the article thought that '00 to '05 was an anomaly for some reason, then they wouldn't be worried about a protectionist backlash that would slow down globalization, and they wouldn't be proposing a New Deal for globalization.

    Think about what was going on when the original New Deal was put in place. "New Deals" don't get proposed for systems that are going well for everybody.

  3. #53
    Talk is cheap and so is Holt! Peter's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Post Count
    1,732
    It's rising. Inflation + lower real wages = higher cost of living
    When you exclude the fact that the average consumer had access to cheap credit plus the fact that those official income statistics exclude unrealized gains on assets, then sure.

    The globalists have made quite an effort to get people to believe that. But even if it was true, stagnant real wages (don't forget the "real" part) would be an improvement over the declining ones that globalization has given us.
    That period started with the end of the .com boom and ended in '05. Of course if you looked solely at real wages you'd see something to that effect. Anyways, my claim was in regards to the average consumer and it's rather obvious that the '00 to '05 period was a net positive for them.


    The study was done by an organization that has alot of influence and has used it to push globalization ever forward. So don't think that they are trying to hide any benefits of globalization. There are benefits; we just don't get them. A small percentage gets them, and we get the costs. If the writers of the article thought that '00 to '05 was an anomaly for some reason, then they wouldn't be worried about a protectionist backlash that would slow down globalization, and they wouldn't be proposing a New Deal for globalization.

    Think about what was going on when the original New Deal was put in place. "New Deals" don't get proposed for systems that are going well for everybody.
    And the article pointed out that the groups which did not see a real wage increase in that time period were subject to the full weight of the federal payroll taxes.

    Anyways, referencing federal tabulated income when the topic is the consumer's welfare misses half of the story, at least.

  4. #54
    W4A1 143 43CK? Nbadan's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Post Count
    32,408
    When you exclude the fact that the average consumer had access to cheap credit plus the fact that those official income statistics exclude unrealized gains on assets, then sure.
    ...but it's only a real gain if you move to a cheaper neighborhood or city or downsize...there are no real unrealized gains when you have to move to a new home that is equally over priced because of the burgeoning bubble in the same neighborhood...you may feel richer because someone says your $150K home is now worth $225k, but it's still the same house....

  5. #55
    W4A1 143 43CK? Nbadan's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Post Count
    32,408
    That period started with the end of the .com boom and ended in '05. Of course if you looked solely at real wages you'd see something to that effect. Anyways, my claim was in regards to the average consumer and it's rather obvious that the '00 to '05 period was a net positive for them.
    Really, how so? it must be our negative average saving rate when baby-boomers should be saving at record levels for retirement? Or, perhaps its the $7000 per household in avg. new debt that most families now carry...the $500/month average car payment? Nah, it's gotta be the house value and that's sure to keep going, up....up...up....right?

  6. #56
    Believe. BradLohaus's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Post Count
    1,343
    When you exclude the fact that the average consumer had access to cheap credit plus the fact that those official income statistics exclude unrealized gains on assets, then sure.
    Those things don't factor into the cost of living, and having access to cheap credit and experiencing unrealized asset gains doesn't mean that a person has benefited from globalization.

    That period started with the end of the .com boom and ended in '05. Of course if you looked solely at real wages you'd see something to that effect. Anyways, my claim was in regards to the average consumer and it's rather obvious that the '00 to '05 period was a net positive for them.
    If a person's gains from an increase in their rate of income and appreciated assets outweighed the costs of the inflation rate and their interest payments on debt during that period, then yes they benefited. That does not mean that they benefited from globalization and that globalization is good for the country, though.

    Anyways, referencing federal tabulated income when the topic is the consumer's welfare misses half of the story, at least.
    True, real wage data is not the whole story. But it is the whole story for people who live paycheck to paycheck or close to it. Those people get raped by globalization and the inflationary monetary sytem. There are alot of people who live that way.

    Of course having 96% of the population experiencing real wage decline over a period does not mean that all of the people in that 96% are worse off, but the people that did not experience an increase in their income rate and asset value big enough to overcome their costs in inflation and interest payments are certainly worse off. And no, that does not mean that globalization is entirely responsible for the shape of those people. But the article admits that there have been winners and losers from globalization, and that the benefits go to too few winners, and something has to be done to change that or else the process of globalization will be slowed down.

    This isn't a question of whether or not the average consumer was better off overall in '05 vs. '00, it's about whether or not the process of globalization is good for most people in the US. If it was a good thing then the Foreign Affairs article talking about a New Deal for globalization would have never been written because you can be certain that the CFR does not want to criticize the process of globalization anymore than they have to.
    Last edited by BradLohaus; 07-30-2007 at 01:55 AM.

  7. #57
    Talk is cheap and so is Holt! Peter's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Post Count
    1,732
    Lower interest rates don't factor into one's cost of living?

  8. #58
    Believe. BradLohaus's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Post Count
    1,343
    The cost of living index is really just the inflation rate, generally accepted as the CPI index (although it is greatly manipulated by the government to reflect lower than reality inflation rates). So you were right to say that interest rates do factor in, but the effects of interest rates on inflation are already taken into acount for cost of living by the inflation rate itself. So I shouldn't have said that cheap credit doesn't factor in; I should have said that its effects are already factored in with the inflation rate.

    However, investments, including homes, are not considered in the CPI. So your point about the benefits of cheap credit relating to unrealized asset gains not being included in the cost of living is valid, but that assumes that the gains will be realized and that the gains will continue and not evaporate, like Dan mentioned. It also assumes that a person has a sufficient amount of appreciated assets to overcome the inflation rate, a situation that a large percentage of the population is not in. This means that they actually lose under a cheap credit, inflationary system, although they may not know it.

    Here's the graph of the CPI since the Federal Reserve was established. Keep in mind that all ties of the dollar to gold were cut in 1971. It's no coincidence that the average CPI line takes off at that point. There are winners and losers because of this.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:U...ndex_Graph.svg

  9. #59
    Talk is cheap and so is Holt! Peter's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Post Count
    1,732
    The cost of living index is really just the inflation rate, generally accepted as the CPI index (although it is greatly manipulated by the government to reflect lower than reality inflation rates). So you were right to say that interest rates do factor in, but the effects of interest rates on inflation are already taken into acount for cost of living by the inflation rate itself. So I shouldn't have said that cheap credit doesn't factor in; I should have said that its effects are already factored in with the inflation rate.
    The CPI doesn't capture items such as the benefits from refinancing a home. A homeowner is able to reduce their monthly payments by refinancing at a lower rate and their cost of living doesn't decline?

    In addition, a component of the CPI are medical costs, yet consumers do not bear the total impact of medical inflation as they pay for a fraction of the actual cost of their care.

    And the CPI doesn't account for changes in product and service quality well. For example, the price of the average TV might go up a little, but now consumers can buy a flat panel HD set in the same price range as an inferior CRT set 10 years ago. Are they really worse off?

    However, investments, including homes, are not considered in the CPI. So your point about the benefits of cheap credit relating to unrealized asset gains not being included in the cost of living is valid, but that assumes that the gains will be realized and that the gains will continue and not evaporate, like Dan mentioned. It also assumes that a person has a sufficient amount of appreciated assets to overcome the inflation rate, a situation that a large percentage of the population is not in. This means that they actually lose under a cheap credit, inflationary system, although they may not know it.
    A majority of Americans are homeowners. Those gains make it easier to refinance a home at a lower rate.

    Also, are we assigning energy inflation in total to "globalization"?

    You also need to account for the changes in product quality and product choices due to trade over the last few decades. You're basically saying that there are not any great gains from trade and that flies in the face of centuries of economic evidence.

    As for the agenda of the CFR and Foreign Affairs, that particular journal has rountinely contained disparate points of view so I think it's a bit much to say that just because it contains a particular article that represents a change in the view of the journal's editorial staff or what not.

  10. #60
    I don't really care... Yonivore's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Post Count
    26,781

  11. #61
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Post Count
    15,842
    Clinton's economic progress over 8 years was much better than dubya's has been.

  12. #62
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Post Count
    2,592
    Clinton's economic progress over 8 years was much better than dubya's has been.
    Clinton also had the benefit of an periodic technology boom sustained economy while Bush started with a slow recession caused by the bursting of the .com bubble and one of the worst economic tragedies in recent history.

    Since 2003 most key economic indicators are significantly better under Bush than Clinton (the main negative being income differential between high ranking management and low-level workers).

  13. #63
    Retired Ray xrayzebra's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Post Count
    9,096
    Clinton's economic progress over 8 years was much better than dubya's has been.
    In who's era did the .com era occur? Just thought I would
    ask.

  14. #64
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Post Count
    15,842
    "Bush started with a slow recession"

    dubya had his tax cuts as the first priority of getting elected, a priority WAY ahead of terrorism and AQ, which he ignored.

    Then he had the govt expenditures of many 100s of $Bs of DHS and MIC expenditures pumping up the economy, and the $Bs spent on hurricanes reconstruction.

    There has been essentially NO job creation under dubya's watch except in health care.

    If a President can claim any responsibility that his policies caused creation of wealth, then Clinton is way out in front of dubya.

  15. #65
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Post Count
    2,592
    "Bush started with a slow recession"

    dubya had his tax cuts as the first priority of getting elected, a priority WAY ahead of terrorism and AQ, which he ignored.

    Then he had the govt expenditures of many 100s of $Bs of DHS and MIC expenditures pumping up the economy, and the $Bs spent on hurricanes reconstruction.

    There has been essentially NO job creation under dubya's watch except in health care.

    If a President can claim any responsibility that his policies caused creation of wealth, then Clinton is way out in front of dubya.
    As of Jan 2007, Bush had a net gain of 4.7 million jobs. Unless all 4.7 million of those are in health care, you're a little off there.

    Bush did not really push any tax cuts until 2 million jobs were lost because of 9-11. His policies encouraged investments in stocks and real assetts, aka increased spending by individuals and companies alike, which is why there was such a quick economic recovery from 9-11. Unfortunately, his policies did redistribute wealth a bit more away from the middle (both the poor and the rich had more while the middle had less, inflation has since killed the gains the poor made early on).

    And just because I can't think of a single thing besides the balanced budget, what exactly were Clinton's policies that led to his economic boom?

  16. #66
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Post Count
    15,842
    "Bush did not really push any tax"

    The first priority and action of the Repug Congress was railroading through huge tax,cut esp for the rich, well before Sep 2001, like in June:

    http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea.../20010607.html

    That total reason fo getting elected accomplished, the WH relaxed, congratulated itself, and then did NOTHING else, in the face of the chatter and flashing red lights, until 12 Sep 2001.

  17. #67
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Post Count
    2,592
    "Bush did not really push any tax"

    The first priority and action of the Repug Congress was railroading through huge tax,cut esp for the rich, well before Sep 2001, like in June:

    http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea.../20010607.html

    That total reason fo getting elected accomplished, the WH relaxed, congratulated itself, and then did NOTHING else, in the face of the chatter and flashing red lights, until 12 Sep 2001.
    You're right, I forgot that. Let's see, it lowered tax rates across the board, much more significant drops for the lower portions of wage earners (and increased the deductions for couples). It increased child tax credits, as well as tuition credits, etc. Lowered capital gains taxes 2%, increased allowable contributions to retirement accounts and made them more accessable for pre-tax contributions. It reduced the maximum estate tax rate from 55% to 45%. And reduced the gift tax rate.

    I see it also phased out limits on itemized deductions, etc. It also killed a few deductions only the rich could take.

    I can see where it was "railroaded", since only about 15% of democrats in the House and 25% in the Senate voted for it, though.

    Unfortunately, since other tax cuts stemming from 9-11 shortly followed, we can't really see the effect of these. I know the combined effect of this and the next two tax cut legislations was the rich's tax burden decreased slightly (I believe less than 1%, but I don't remember), the poor's a bit, and the middle class's increased to compensate.

    EDIT: I was a little bit off. The 2001 tax cuts (and whatever other factors) reduced the burden on the top 1% by slightly less than 2%, and reduced the tax burden on the bottom 80% by over 3%. The top 1%'s tax burden significantly increased the following year, while the bottom 80% continued to drop. As far as individuals go, anyway. (http://www.taxfoundation.org/blog/show/2120.html)
    Last edited by fyatuk; 07-31-2007 at 05:48 PM.

  18. #68
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Post Count
    15,842
    "Recent job gains lag far behind historical norms

    President Bush has noted that 2 million jobs were created over the course of 2005 and that we have added 4.6 million jobs since the decline in jobs ended in May 2003. But does that mean the labor market is getting back to normal?

    Unfortunately, no. Recent job gains lag far behind historical norms. Last year's 2 million new jobs represented a gain of 1.5%, a sluggish growth rate by historical standards (see chart below). In fact, it is less than half of the average growth rate of 3.5% for the same stage of previous business cycles that lasted as long. At that pace, we would have created 4.6 million jobs last year. If jobs had grown last year at the pace of even the slowest of the prior cycles—2.1% in the 1980s—we would have added 2.8 million jobs. Over the last half century, the only 12-month spans with job growth as low as 1.5% were those that actually included recession months, occurred just before a recession, or were during the "jobless recovery" of 1992 and early 1993."

    http://www.jobwatch.org/

    There this, from Socialist Weekly:

    http://www.businessweek.com/magazine...9/b4002004.htm

  19. #69
    Believe. BradLohaus's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Post Count
    1,343
    The CPI doesn't capture items such as the benefits from refinancing a home. A homeowner is able to reduce their monthly payments by refinancing at a lower rate and their cost of living doesn't decline?
    No, because buying a home is an investment. Refinancing generally just means a lower monthly payment for a longer period of time for that investment. If a person rents their home and their rent goes down, then their cost of living is lower. The next time that I hear of that happening for the exact same house/apartment will be the first time.

    In addition, a component of the CPI are medical costs, yet consumers do not bear the total impact of medical inflation as they pay for a fraction of the actual cost of their care.
    Consumers pay the cost of all medical care through direct payments, insurance payments, and taxes to the government. Some people gain from that (the poorer, the more likely) and some people lose from that (the richer, the more likely) and some people come out about even. Overall, consumers bear the total impact of medical inflation.

    And the CPI doesn't account for changes in product and service quality well. For example, the price of the average TV might go up a little, but now consumers can buy a flat panel HD set in the same price range as an inferior CRT set 10 years ago. Are they really worse off?
    If the change in quality is greater than the change in price, then yes they are better off.

    A majority of Americans are homeowners. Those gains make it easier to refinance a home at a lower rate.
    I don't think the majority of Americans own their homes free and clear. The majority of Americans may be homebuyers, but signing on the line for a mortgage doesn't mean that person owns the home. The majority of homes in America are owned by credit lenders.

    Also, are we assigning energy inflation in total to "globalization"?
    I don't think energy inflation has anything to do with globalization, as far as trade, open borders, etc. goes

    You also need to account for the changes in product quality and product choices due to trade over the last few decades. You're basically saying that there are not any great gains from trade and that flies in the face of centuries of economic evidence.
    Don't give all of the gains in product quality and choice to trade; almost all of those gains belong to technological progress. People like to say that trade gave us better TVs, or whatever product. We could have banned every Japanese TV since WW2 and we'd still be watching Spurs games on HD flatscreens. The only reason that those TVs are now made in Japan is because the Japanese have benefited greatly from trade.

    Notice I didn't say free trade. The Japanese put large tariffs on American products, like TVs, and we let in Japanese products tariff free or close to it. Throw in much lower Japanese wage rates over the decades and its pretty easy to see why we don't make TVs anymore. So the Japanese not only made higher profits, but they used their lower wage advantage to contribute much more to R&D. That's why they eventually destroyed certain sectors of the American electronics industry.

    There are great gains from trade; the Japanese got plenty of them. The owners of American manufacturing plants who get to move their manufacturing bases south of the Rio Grande and to Asia and pay the workers there considerably less than American workers also benefit greatly.

    As for the agenda of the CFR and Foreign Affairs, that particular journal has rountinely contained disparate points of view so I think it's a bit much to say that just because it contains a particular article that represents a change in the view of the journal's editorial staff or what not.
    CFR=globalization. They only differ on the best way to move the process along.

  20. #70
    Believe. BradLohaus's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Post Count
    1,343
    To you guys arguing about which president was better for the economy: the power of the president over the economy is dwarfed by the power of the Chairman of the Federal Reserve. Whatever the specific question is about that economic period, the answer is Greenspan.

  21. #71
    Talk is cheap and so is Holt! Peter's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Post Count
    1,732
    No, because buying a home is an investment.
    ....and housing. This is one of the major flaws in the CPI and why most economists are moving away from it as a tool. It doesn't reflect reality. It's an industrial age tool for industrial age thinking.

    Refinancing generally just means a lower monthly payment for a longer period of time for that investment. If a person rents their home and their rent goes down, then their cost of living is lower. The next time that I hear of that happening for the exact same house/apartment will be the first time.

    So the cost of living is lower as the outstanding balance is amortized at a lower rate over those years. Also, the PV of those payments in 2035 or so are inconsequential to the consumer today. The consumer benefits today. In the long run, we're all dead, to summon a dead economist.


    Consumers pay the cost of all medical care through direct payments, insurance payments, and taxes to the government. Some people gain from that (the poorer, the more likely) and some people lose from that (the richer, the more likely) and some people come out about even. Overall, consumers bear the total impact of medical inflation.
    Consumers do not bear the total impact of medical inflation on those products and services they consume.


    If the change in quality is greater than the change in price, then yes they are better off.
    Well, there you go.

    I don't think the majority of Americans own their homes free and clear. The majority of Americans may be homebuyers, but signing on the line for a mortgage doesn't mean that person owns the home. The majority of homes in America are owned by credit lenders.
    That's a legal question yet most homeowners are able to enjoy the appreciation of the property as the value of their homes is greater than the outstanding balance on the mortgage plus their initial equity investment.


    I don't think energy inflation has anything to do with globalization, as far as trade, open borders, etc. goes
    Then revise the inflation rate based on the CPI downwards.


    Don't give all of the gains in product quality and choice to trade; almost all of those gains belong to technological progress. People like to say that trade gave us better TVs, or whatever product. We could have banned every Japanese TV since WW2 and we'd still be watching Spurs games on HD flatscreens. The only reason that those TVs are now made in Japan is because the Japanese have benefited greatly from trade.
    ...and not because the US consumer has benefited as well? Anyways, consumers benefit from greater choice and compe ion brought about by trade. Driving down any street or highway today will show you that Americans are rather glad they aren't limited to the Big 3 when it comes to their vehicle purchases.

    Notice I didn't say free trade. The Japanese put large tariffs on American products, like TVs, and we let in Japanese products tariff free or close to it. Throw in much lower Japanese wage rates over the decades and its pretty easy to see why we don't make TVs anymore. So the Japanese not only made higher profits, but they used their lower wage advantage to contribute much more to R&D. That's why they eventually destroyed certain sectors of the American electronics industry.
    Yet the American consumer still benefited.

    There are great gains from trade; the Japanese got plenty of them. The owners of American manufacturing plants who get to move their manufacturing bases south of the Rio Grande and to Asia and pay the workers there considerably less than American workers also benefit greatly.
    And the American consumer benefits.


    CFR=globalization. They only differ on the best way to move the process along.
    So what if they do?
    Last edited by Peter; 07-31-2007 at 11:05 PM.

  22. #72
    Believe. BradLohaus's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Post Count
    1,343
    ....and housing. This is one of the major flaws in the CPI and why most economists are moving away from it as a tool. It doesn't reflect reality. It's an industrial age tool for industrial age thinking.
    I'm not trying to defend the CPI. It's far from perfect and easily manipulated. But, a house is an investment that has a great deal of consumption qualites to it, and that makes it hard to translate mortgages into cost of living statistics. I guess you could assign the rent value of the house to the CPI. But rents are almost always increasing. And cost of living has nothing to do with asset appreciation anyway, which I think was your point to begin with. If you have alot of assets with gains that will be realized, then it's a good point. If you don't, then it isn't. That's all I was trying to say.

    So the cost of living is lower as the outstanding balance is amortized at a lower rate over those years. Also, the PV of those payments in 2035 or so are inconsequential to the consumer today. The consumer benefits today. In the long run, we're all dead, to summon a dead economist.
    I wouldn't say inconsequential; if they were, then we'd all be trying to get 50 year mortgages. And I'm not a big fan of Keynes. I'm in the group that holds his deficit spending, demand-side ideas at least partly responsible for the ever increasing size of the government and national debt. Also, at Bretton Woods, he advocated that the UN issue a single world wide currency. The US had so much power after WW2 that we were able to get the dollar to be the reserve currency of the world. He was right to see the problems with that, but insane for wanting a one world currency. Little known Keyens fact: he slept around with men before he got married. I don't intend that as an ad hominem attack against his ideas - I'm just throwing it out there. They don't tell you that in econ class.

    Consumers do not bear the total impact of medical inflation on those products and services they consume.
    I don't know what you're trying to say. All costs are passed on to the consumer. If the consumer isn't paying these costs, who is? Just because someone else is footing much of the bill at the time doesn't mean that those costs aren't eventually paid by the general consumer.

    Well, there you go.
    Gains in TV product quality come from gains in technology, not trade. If we had been making TVs all that time, then we'd be making alot of the slick new TVs the Japanese are making. But they were able to make them cheaper because of differences in tariffs and wages.

    That's a legal question yet most homeowners are able to enjoy the appreciation of the property as the value of their homes is greater than the outstanding balance on the mortgage plus their initial equity investment.
    It's a pretty important legal question if a person suddenly can't make their house payment. And it all depends on that appreciation continuing to exist until it's time to sell.

    Then revise the inflation rate based on the CPI downwards.
    Saying that globalization doesn't have much to do with energy inflation doesn't mean that the inflation rate is lower than it is.

    ...and not because the US consumer has benefited as well? Anyways, consumers benefit from greater choice and compe ion brought about by trade. Driving down any street or highway today will show you that Americans are rather glad they aren't limited to the Big 3 when it comes to their vehicle purchases.
    Trade does bring about benefits from choice and compe ion. I'm not against trade at all. I'm against trade that is largely ideological and unfair as a whole to the US worker, who doubles as the US consumer. It's not right to look at the benefits and ignore the costs - stagnant (at best) real wage rates, a disappearing manufacturing base, a widening gap between rich and poor, and a shrinking middle class as a percentage of the population. Globalization has alot to do with those things.

    And the vast majority of American just want the best car for their money; it's the fault of the architects of US trade policy over the last half century that many people find Japanese cars to be best for them. I bet much of Michigan would like to have a word with the people responsible for those trade policies. Saving some money at Wal-Mart, Best Buy and on a Japanese car certainly doesn't mean that a person or a region as gained from globalization. You have to look at the costs as well.

    Yet the American consumer still benefited.

    And the American consumer benefits.
    Huge gains from increased technology. Some, but much less, from trade, including higher costs from trade.



    So what if they do?
    Because it is bad for the US.

  23. #73
    W4A1 143 43CK? Nbadan's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Post Count
    32,408
    As U.S. income stagnates, Democrats reject free trade
    By Kevin G. Hall | McClatchy Newspapers

    WASHINGTON —
    The Democratic-led Congress won’t give President Bush the special authority he needs to negotiate future free-trade deals. The Senate is moving on retaliatory trade legislation against China. The House of Representatives won’t approve deals with three small neighboring Latin American countries. Global trade talks are near collapse.

    Washington's mood on free trade hasn’t been this negative in at least two decades, and a pullback is evident. Whether this becomes a full-blown return to protectionism remains to be seen. But for now Americans, and the politicians they elect to represent them, are in no mood to expand international trade.

    “For decades we took for granted that everyone agreed with us economists that free trade is good, protectionism is bad. Somewhere along the way, that stopped being the conventional wisdom,” acknowledged U.S. Trade Representative Susan Schwab, in an interview with McClatchy Newspapers. “And whereas the default vote on a trade bill in Congress used to be a ‘yes’ vote, the default vote on a trade bill now in Congress is a ‘no’ vote.” Why? Because lots of people are no longer convinced that a rising tide of trade lifts all boats — and there's evidence to back them up.

    For three decades, the richest 10 percent of Americans have been growing even richer much faster than everyone else. Over the past five years, real wages for all the rest of American workers have been almost flat. Many blame globalization........
    McClatchy Newspapers

  24. #74
    W4A1 143 43CK? Nbadan's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Post Count
    32,408
    The Unraveling
    By David Glenn Cox



    The unraveling has begun, watching the talking heads the only thing they seem to agree on is the money being pumped in by central banks around the world isn’t getting to where it needs to go. That’s an easy one, everyone wants to help the leper’s but no one wants to go do it personally.

    But for George Herbert Hoover Bush this is his moment in the sun, his hour of redemption. During hurricane Katrina Bush was accused of ignoring the suffering of the residents of Louisiana because they were poor and black. Now he’s proving to the world that it was not so, this time he’s ignoring bankers who are rich and white. Trapped on the rooftops of failing banks as the economic levees collapse and the castles made of sand wash away all while George tunes up his air guitar.

    Not that they wouldn’t help if they could but no one has the answer. The philosophy of when in doubt do nothing reigns supreme. The Fed working in relatively small increments pours money in then sits back and watches. The European central banks alone have poured in more than double the amount of the US Federal Reserve and the problem is in America not Europe. Proof positive the smart money boys are lost like a ball in high weeds.

    During the Three Mile Island accident the plant operators went through the manual and yet everything they tried just made the problem worse. The problem was that they didn’t understand the problem in the first place. This was a new problem that wasn’t in the manual. Our economic wizards will tell you the problem is liquidity in the sub prime mortgage market.

    But missed in the economic floodwaters among the flotsam was the waterlogged performance of Wal-Mart. The home of low prices and lower wages is in a crisis mode as store sales are flat. They have tried to attract newer more upscale customers but they prefer to stay segregated from the great unwashed. Wal-Marts customers are generally the lower strata of the economic ladder, those of us who are all ready under the floodwaters.

    There is a section of the population myself included that won’t shop at Wal-Mart because of their policies and practices and that demographic is growing. Wal-Mart stock suffered from reduced profit expectations do to shrinkage. Theft, Wal-Mart estimates 47% of shrinkage is caused by employees, funny isn’t it. No one hates Wal-Mart more than your friendly Wal-Mart associate does. A 44% annual turn over of employee’s leads to employee’s who don’t know or don’t care or don’t want to know and won’t ever care.

    Maybe you saw your co worker put a camera or DVD player in the trash on his way out what do you care it’s not worth the trouble. It’s not like the company would appreciate you or something. But in reading about Wal-Marts troubles I read something that disturbed me greatly, so much that I went looking for corroboration. The theft problems at Wal-Mart weren’t camera’s or DVD players or sneakers or rap music CD’s but food!


    Food from Wal-Mart grocery stores was among the leaders, the canary in the coal mine. Teenagers steal sneakers and video games the elderly steal Poly Grip or Preparation H to stretch their Social Security checks. But food crosses all lines hungry people steal food, they don’t brag about it nor are they proud of it they don’t do it to impress their friends or to be thought of as cool.


    I was shocked to read it but I bet the boys at the Fed don’t know about it yet. George Herbert Hoover Bush doesn’t know it and I bet the traders in the money pits on Wall Street don’t know about it either. If the economic talking head guru’s on TV know about it mums the word. But as they pontificate about the nations largest mortgage lender becoming insolvent can they miss the significance of the nations largest retailer losing millions of dollars in stolen food! Duh! Just doesn’t seem to cover it.

    Globalization has brought lower wages to the middle class and even to the upper middle class and two days of hunger can undo a lifetime of thou shall not steal. Civilization is a voluntary organization and people priced out of it and pushed out of it don’t care about it any more than Wal-Mart associates care about stock forecasts.But they do understand that working two jobs isn’t full employment but empty life.A life of struggle and hardship of doing and doing and doing without.

    But those at the top really believe if you pour enough money in it will trickle down but the evidence says other wise. Globalism was sold to us that it would bring jobs and prosperity but the evidence says other wise. The exportation of manufacturing and the outsourcing of technical jobs has left a hole in our economy and it is exacerbated by 20 million illegal aliens driving down wages even more. Any good Republican can tell you it’s not about racism its about supply and demand.

    But the housing bubble or any bubble is built on the expectation that it will continue to expand. But when a nation export's it’s manufacturing base and outsources technical jobs and forces down wages what else can mortgage lenders do? But lower standards after all they will pass that paper on anyway and their income is dependent on how much paper they pass. Just as the homebuilders is on how many homes they sell and they material suppliers depend on them selling as well.

    But forgotten in the formula is low wages and no health insurance force people out of the home buying market. People stealing food at Wal-Mart don’t buy houses in fact they don’t buy much of anything. The illegal alien carpenter building those new homes sends his money home to Mexico or Guatemala where globalism and free trade have brought even more misery.

    It’s the great global disconnect, high corporate profits does not prosperity make. The Chinaman earning five dollars a day might look great on the balance sheet but it doesn’t help Pittsburgh or Portland and since the corporation uses a mail drop in the Caribbean it doesn’t add one dollar of tax revenue to the local economy. You’ll just have to make up that tax revenue from the Wal-Mart associates or maybe add a penny of sales tax.

    Duh! I wonder why bridges are falling in? I wonder why those levees failed? I wonder why our jails are full? I wonder why do those kids want to sell drugs?

    Push has come to shove, the bubble burst not because of easy credit or action by the Federal reserve, or mortgage lenders but by the strangulation of the American working class. The pinprick of reality the one time wealthiest consumer in the world now steals food from Wal-Mart, where one income was once enough now it takes three or more.

    There is a cynical guilty pleasure in watching the smart boys struggle to swim against the current, trying to handle the crisis. I know it’s wrong, but for so many years they had all the answers and spoke of the working class in their academic abstractions of lowered expectations and short term economic pain. Eat some of your own lowered expectations and short term economic pain fellas it’s called humble pie. Maybe the wife can get a job, I hear Wal-Mart’s hiring or maybe if you work more hours or live in a smaller house this will all go away.

    But it won’t go away, last week the experts called it a correction yesterday the used the word bank failure. Last week Country Wide mortgage said they had $187 billion in reserves but the reserves are in those same depreciated dollars that force Americans to steal food from Wal-Mart. The weakness isn’t at the top it’s at the bottom, a con perpetrated on the American people to pay for wars and tax cuts when they didn’t need either.

    We seem to need to relearn the lesson every few generations, that the top of the economy is supported by the bottom. That wealth comes from the bottom up that there has never been an economy where the working class has done well that has collapsed. The wreckage from economies manipulated to move wealth to the top of societies litter history books pages. Maybe now we can go back to business building products rather than stock prices and making money by making things. And by paying decent wages to the people so they can buy those products.

    If your answer is that can’t be done, then start swimming Capitalism is finished.
    Last edited by Nbadan; 08-18-2007 at 04:05 AM.

  25. #75
    dangerous floater Winehole23's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Post Count
    113,908
    great for the Asian middle class and the top decile of world income:


Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •