Should We Continue To Rely On China?

[Tyler7940]

Hello all, it's been forever since I've been on due to my slow internet but I now have satellite internet and should be on daily. Anyway, Do you think we should continue to look to China for cheap production, or should we produce more in America? I personally believe that we should produce MUCH more in America because we are giving china Billions of dollars that they can spend on their military, enabling them to become a much larger threat to us. I also believe that by relying on China less, crime would be decreased because employment would go up. With employment up, more money would go to the government and taxes could be reduced, and the government would have more money to spend. Let me know what you think.

[Burning Giraffe]

Hello all, it's been forever since I've been on due to my slow internet but I now have satellite internet and should be on daily. Anyway, Do you think we should continue to look to China for cheap production, or should we produce more in America? I personally believe that we should produce MUCH more in America because we are giving china Billions of dollars that they can spend on their military, enabling them to become a much larger threat to us. I also believe that by relying on China less, crime would be decreased because employment would go up. With employment up, more money would go to the government and taxes could be reduced, and the government would have more money to spend. Let me know what you think.

Yes, we should. However, we should rely on ourselves for higher quality, longer lasting products, and as consumers, we must be willing to pay more for higher quality, knowing that in the long run we will save money. Furthermore, an increase in demand for quality American goods will lower the price of these goods.

[Tyler7940]

Yes, we should. However, we should rely on ourselves for higher quality, longer lasting products, and as consumers, we must be willing to pay more for higher quality, knowing that in the long run we will save money. Furthermore, an increase in demand for quality American goods will lower the price of these goods.

But as I said before, we would be giving China money that they could use to make their military a threat to us. Not to mention, with the number of recalls that have happened in the past year, it would probably be a lot safer.

[Burning Giraffe]

But as I said before, we would be giving China money that they could use to make their military a threat to us. Not to mention, with the number of recalls that have happened in the past year, it would probably be a lot safer.

China will never be a military threat to the United States, as a war between our two nations would cause mutually assured economic destruction.

[Tyler7940]

China will never be a military threat to the United States, as a war between our two nations would cause mutually assured economic destruction.

You say that but I'm going to need some proof in order to believe that, tell me why China will never be a military threat to the U.S?

[Burning Giraffe]

You say that but I'm going to need some proof in order to believe that, tell me why China will never be a military threat to the U.S?

Because China is so heavily invested in the US economy and infrastructure, and we're their biggest market for their goods. If they attacked us, they'd be undercutting the source of their economic might and would thus lose the ability to fund their military.

[Tyler7940]

All they need is for America to fund them enough that they can make a huge and sophisticated military and get their country started up on it's own economically. I'd say that within about 20 to 30 years (possibly less) they could be on their own, pose a threat to the U.S, and keep up a wartime economy.

[Burning Giraffe]

All they need is for America to fund them enough that they can make a huge and sophisticated military and get their country started up on it's own economically. I'd say that within about 20 to 30 years (possibly less) they could be on their own, pose a threat to the U.S, and keep up a wartime economy.

How? Do you realize the kinds of global economic shifts that would have to take place in order for that to occur? The entire world would have to become economically independent of the United States.

[Tyler7940]

How? Do you realize the kinds of global economic shifts that would have to take place in order for that to occur? The entire world would have to become economically independent of the United States.

How so?

[Burning Giraffe]

How so?

Because, the United States is still the center of the economic universe. If the United States were thrown into a real war, food and energy prices across the world would more than double. America's markets would lessen, decreasing global demand for products and services, crippling nations like India and Japan. A severe hit to the Indian economy would be a dangerous thing for the East Asian region, and would certainly make China and Pakistan nervous. Furthermore, European markets would crash with a long-term, pessimistic view of American markets. This would further destroy Chinese export markets, destroying their own economy. China is too big and too poor to ever achieve economic independence, if that is what you are afraid of.

[Tyler7940]

You make a very good point and I will admit that you hve proven me wrong in that instance, however I still believe we need to rely less on China to increase employment and to give them less money.

[Burning Giraffe]

You make a very good point and I will admit that you hve proven me wrong in that instance, however I still believe we need to rely less on China to increase employment and to give them less money.

I totally agree - and this begins with promoting high quality, longer lasting, more energy efficient American Products. :)

[potter]

I think we need to find another country whos workers we can exploit with sub-poverty wages and no safety protections.....the Chinese are startin' to catch on.....:nana:

[Burning Giraffe]

I think we need to find another country whos workers we can exploit with sub-poverty wages and no safety protections.....the Chinese are startin' to catch on.....:nana:

We have: we import them illegally from South and Central America.

[4Reaganomics]

workers that we employ in foreign country's are better off under our companies' employment than if our companies were not employing them at all

They are better off and we have no obligation to give them U.S. type wages. We have an obligation to America, not the third world.

[potter]

We have: we import them illegally from South and Central America.


Our very own lower caste citizens...how speshial!

[Burning Giraffe]

workers that we employ in foreign country's are better off under our companies' employment than if our companies were not employing them at all

They are better off and we have no obligation to give them U.S. type wages. We have an obligation to America, not the third world.

But remember, liberals think that corporations are slaves of the people and should be commanded through force to give people a "living wage". Corporations are banks of capital, it would seem, to be exploited and controlled by the people and by their governments.

[potter]

I take it you don't agree that a working man should receive living wages?

How is he supposed to live? In the gutter with church hand outs of bread and water, only rising out of the gutter to daily work 8-15 hours at hard labor while making his employer rich?

[4Reaganomics]

There is no such thing as a universal living wage in my opinion. A person's wage measures their market worth. Corporations bring prosperity to their employees in America as well as investors who own portions of the corporations. They are not obligated to give people a living wage, people are obligated to earn it.

[potter]

So it's up to the employer to decide if a person working full time for him is "worth it"?

Knowing the greed in our society, no one will ever be worth a living wage, so we'll have the kings, their special land owners, and the serfs who eat bread and water.

Nice society you envision there.

[4Reaganomics]

I take it you don't agree that a working man should receive living wages?

How is he supposed to live? In the gutter with church hand outs of bread and water while making his employer rich?

He is supposed to do whatever he can to increase his state of living. If you don't like your current situation then take the police test, become an electrician's apprentice and then an electrician, start a small business, innovate

If we simply gave everyone a pass then there wouldn't be any motivation to get to a comfortable living. People born in ghettos receiving welfare will stay there, like they have in every Democratic controlled city in America for 50 years

[4Reaganomics]

So it's up to the employer to decide of a person working full time for him is "worth it?

Knowing the greed in our societry, no one will every be wortk a living wage, so we'll have the kings, thier special land owners, and the serfs who eat bread and water.

Nice society you envision there.

I can give you examples of serfs

your boy Soros, Buffet, Kramer, Kerkorian, the list goes on for days

plenty of bread and water people become the most successful and earn the living wage

[Burning Giraffe]

I take it you don't agree that a working man should receive living wages?

How is he supposed to live? In the gutter with church hand outs of bread and water, only rising out of the gutter to daily work 8-15 hours at hard labor while making his employer rich?

People should get paid for what they produce. What they "need" has absolutely nothing to do with what they should make. People need to produce what they consume, otherwise, they are just a bunch of greedy takers - and let's be honest, who really wants to live that way? Who could live that way and still have self-respect?

[potter]

So someone working for someone else has no value?

How does the auto barron become wealthy if he has no one working for him assembling automobiles? He doesn't. Who does he sell the automobiles too if nobody makes enough to afford one? Therefore his business is dependent on the people he employs. They have value because without them the auto barron would just be another broke schmuck in the gutter.

Do the workers have any right to a safe working environment or set hours or does the business owner have a right to poison his workers and make them work 20 hour days too?

Your stance has a major flaw. You assume everyone has the same abilities. You assume everyone in the country can just start up a business.

Some people are very good at what they do but would suck at managing their own business affairs. I read your position to be that only business owners deserve to live comfortably and it's incredibly elitist. England circa 1050 would have suited you. Nobles and serfs.

You really hate those "common" people don't you?

[potter]

People should get paid for what they produce. What they "need" has absolutely nothing to do with what they should make. People need to produce what they consume, otherwise, they are just a bunch of greedy takers - and let's be honest, who really wants to live that way? Who could live that way and still have self-respect?


You mean like all those business owners who don't produce a thing and live off the labor of others?

[potter]

I never thought in the land of the free people would be advocating screwing their fellow countrymen like you guys do.

[Burning Giraffe]

So someone working for someone else has no value?

They are worth what they produce. Otherwise, whatever else they take from their employer is theft.


How does the auto barron become wealthy if he has no one working for him assembling automobiles? He doesn't. Who does he sell the automobiles too if nobody makes enough to afford one? Therefore his business is dependent on the people he employs. They have value because without them the auto barron would just be another broke schmuck in the gutter.

Industrialists have never had trouble finding people looking for work or people who are willing to agree to an economic contract governing the compensation for labor. I'm not sure where your problem with this is.


Do the workers have any right to a safe working environment or set hours or does the business owner have a right to poison his workers and make them work 20 hour days too?

An employer does not have the right to infringe upon his employees liberty through either force or fraud, and is fiscally responsible for the conditions provided to his employees.


Your stance has a major flaw. You assume everyone has the same abilities. You assume everyone in the country can just start up a business.

No I don't. I don't assume that at all. I don't think everyone has the same abilities, not even close. Some people are much more productive and responsible than other people. Inventors, Producers, and Speculators play the most important roles in our economy and they get paid the most. Which is fair. Democrats want to deny them an equal return on their value, when without the inventors, producers, and speculators, there would be no jobs for anyone, no products to manufacture, no plants to manufacture them in, no technological improvements, no one shouldering the economic risks of investment.


Some people are very good at what they do but would suck at managing their own business affairs. I read your position to be that only business owners deserve to live comfortably and it's incredibly elitist. England circa 1050 would have suited you. Nobles and serfs.

You really hate those "common" people don't you?

I am one of these common people and I certainly don't hate myself. I simply am not a greedy, hateful, bastard hellbent on exploiting the wealth or liberty of others. I respect each individual as an individual and I believe in equality, which means I am willing to trade my labor for a value equal to what I produce, relative to the number of other people offering a similar service. That's just economics. It's fair and its just and its moral. What liberals are talking about is predicated on greed, envy, force, and theft, and I believe that is immoral.

[ptif219]

Liberals want special paid leaves and other nutty stuff from employers.
Remeber Obama says one of the first things he will do is raise minimum wage.

We need to demand a new tax system.Such as the fair tax act which would do away with corporate taxes which would make buisness here more desireable.It also could attract foeiegn buisness to come to this country.

[4Reaganomics]

I like the flat tax. From an economic prespective I fear a fair tax would slow down consumer spending and thus the economy.

Russia probably has the best tax system right now, I think it is flat 18%, December will know

[potter]

Giraffe, that post wasn't addressed to you. I barely even know you..... :bye: Sorry I wasn't clear.

My problem was with the statement "nobody deserves a living wage"

In fact many people do deserve a living wage. The market generally provides that as you point out.

Reagan - so you would also eliminate child labor laws, OSHA standards, weekly hour standards etc? Maybe go back to the child sweat shops of the turn of the century?

Those are all such "liberal" concepts that you certainly cannot support them.

[potter]

I like the flat tax. From an economic prespective I fear a fair tax would slow down consumer spending and thus the economy.

Russia probably has the best tax system right now, I think it is flat 18%, December will know


What's the difference between a flat tax and a fair tax? They both seem the same to me.....Off topic BTW :unreal:

[potter]

Liberals want special paid leaves and other nutty stuff from employers.
.


Right, we need to eliminate holidays and vacations and paid medical too. In fact the 40 hour work week and weekends off also need to be scrapped. All "liberal" bullshit. :dork:

[potter]

I can give you examples of serfs

your boy Soros, Buffet, Kramer, Kerkorian, the list goes on for days

plenty of bread and water people become the most successful and earn the living wage


My boy Soros? Who the fuck is that? I've heard of Buffet, Kramer I don't know. Kerkorkian...is he a scientist?

[MCTHOUSAND]

I never thought in the land of the free people would be advocating screwing their fellow countrymen like you guys do.

Potter, the free market determines what your skills are worth. A good society should provide the opportunity for going as far up the ladder as ambition and hard work and ability can take you.

I ended up as a fabricator/welder and earned a fair living. When I felt I wasn't being paid enough, I found another job. Business owners are always looking for people who can make them some money.

[Burning Giraffe]

You mean like all those business owners who don't produce a thing and live off the labor of others?

Which business owners don't produce? If they own a business, they've produced the business.

[4Reaganomics]

The fair tax taxes consumption and strictly consumption. It means that if you make 50K a year you will keep 50K a year. However, everything would be subject to large federal taxes when purchased. There could be a 20% tax on restaurants or a 15% tax on a new vehicle.

The issue I have with this is that I believe while people will see increases in wages due to no direct income tax, they will shy away from consumer spending due to the large price increases with the tax.

Elastic products would be hurt somewhat, and if restaurants cost 20% more regardless of a increase in disposable income, people are more likely to eat at home. When I really worked out the math on it and jockeyed some spreadsheets I thought that it would hurt production, small business, and so many elastic products. There is a balance between income elasticity and price elasticity of demand, and I think the fair tax loses it.

A flat tax would simply tax everyone one rate on their income regardless of earnings, as in around 18%

So the person making 50K would pay 9K in taxes and the person making 100K would pay 18K and so forth

This would provide more incentive for production and would incourage the consumer to spend, which drives the economy.



In regards to your child labor laws question from earlier, I am for as little regulation as possible as long as people are making voluntary choices and exchanges in regards to adults.

I believe a child can agree to an exchange of labor at age 16, before this our laws should require limited hours and parental consent

[potter]

Which business owners don't produce? If they own a business, they've produced the business.

Plenty of people with absolutely no skill provide a place to conduct business then hire brains to produce. Those people aren't producing anything, their employers are. Lots of these people never even visit this business, they just take a fee for having the "place"

But like I said, my issue isn't the free market, my issue is with "nobody deserves a living wage"

[ptif219]

What's the difference between a flat tax and a fair tax? They both seem the same to me.....Off topic BTW :unreal:

The fair tax is a federal sales tax that would eliminate all other federal taxes.

http://usgovinfo.about.com/cs/taxes/a/aafairtax.htm


The flat tax is a rate everybody pays on their income

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/bg1866.cfm

[potter]

The fair tax taxes consumption and strictly consumption. It means that if you make 50K a year you will keep 50K a year. However, everything would be subject to large federal taxes when purchased. There could be a 20% tax on restaurants or a 15% tax on a new vehicle.




Ah, I see, thanks for the explaination.

edited -

[Burning Giraffe]

Plenty of people with absolutely no skill provide a place to conduct business then hire brains to produce. Those people aren't producing anything, their employers are. Lots of these people never even visit this business, they just take a fee for having the "place"

But like I said, my issue isn't the free market, my issue is with "nobody deserves a living wage"

What are you talking about? If you are talking about a CEO's employers, then that's the investors. The investors make production possible by funding it. The CEO's direct the company and keep it viable on the market. The ad agency's get the word out. You need all these rich bastards to produce a single socket or television. These high-end company men are worth every cent to their companies in value.

You only deserve what you produce. Every penny more than that, that you take, is theft and is therefore dishonorable.

[potter]

What are you talking about? If you are talking about a CEO's employers, then that's the investors. The investors make production possible by funding it. The CEO's direct the company and keep it viable on the market. The ad agency's get the word out. You need all these rich bastards to produce a single socket or television. These high-end company men are worth every cent to their companies in value.

You only deserve what you produce. Every penny more than that, that you take, is theft and is therefore dishonorable.

An accountant produces nothing, should they work for free? A file clerk produces nothing, should they work for free? A receptionist produces nothing, should they work for free. Perhaps it's the way you're phrasing things but it seems as if you're sayiong that only those who build and manufacture deserve a wage.

How do you determine "worth"

I think any person who puts in a good days work deserves a living wage for that work. Otherwise, why work?

I'm getting from you that only business owners deserve a good wage and everyone who works for then should be happy to live in poverty.

Perhaps we should revert to serfdom or slavery, at least you would be guarenteed a roof and a meal at the end of the day for your labors.

[Osborn F. Enready]

China is an ideological enemy, and no, we should not continue to rely on China for anything, and we need to end what dependence we do have on them immediately.

[Burning Giraffe]

An accountant produces nothing, should they work for free? A file clerk produces nothing, should they work for free? A receptionist produces nothing, should they work for free. Perhaps it's the way you're phrasing things but it seems as if you're sayiong that only those who build and manufacture deserve a wage.

An accountant does produce a service; and I'm speaking in economic terms about the economy, so we're are talking about goods and services. Each are "produced". (I can see how using the term "produce" in a vacuum would be confusing. I apologize for not being more specific).

How do you determine "worth"

I think any person who puts in a good days work deserves a living wage for that work. Otherwise, why work?

I'm getting from you that only business owners deserve a good wage and everyone who works for then should be happy to live in poverty.

Perhaps we should revert to serfdom or slavery, at least you would be guarenteed a roof and a meal at the end of the day for your labors.

What is a good wage? What is a "living wage"? If the value of a good or living wage is greater than the values produced by the employed, then the business will be losing money on its labor, which will be an added cost to their overhead, which will raise the price of goods, which will increase our cost of living, which will, in turn, increase what we need for a living wage. :) So you see, that just paying people more will never solve the problem. If a company cannot make enough of a profit on a product to afford to pay people to produce it, then they should not be in business.

If you lack the knowledge or ability to earn a "good" wage, what right do you have to steal it from someone else? Especially through force of federal mandates like the minimum wage. It's dishonorable and unjust.

[potter]

Giraffe, your post is good and I think perhaps we are mis-understanding each other.

I'm seeing your position as anyone who expects a living wage is "stealing"

All I'm talking about is fairness for those who "earn" their wages. I'm not advocating forcing employers to pay for "unearned" or unrealistic wages.....

[Osborn F. Enready]

Potter, I also am against the "popular" concept of a living wage.... often circulated amongst unions for raising support for themselves.

A living wage is a wage that one person can live on in their area in exchange for working 40 hours a week.

I don't know of ONE SINGLE ENTRY LEVEL JOB that deserves a living wage.

I dislike the term "living wage" since its constantly bandied about and repeated by the media, though rarely if ever applied to reality.

[4Reaganomics]

There shouldn't even be a minimum wage let alone a living wage

any price floor such as this naturally creates a surplus

that surplus is unemployment

[Osborn F. Enready]

Exactly Reaganomics.

[Burning Giraffe]

Giraffe, your post is good and I think perhaps we are mis-understanding each other.

I'm seeing your position as anyone who expects a living wage is "stealing"

All I'm talking about is fairness for those who "earn" their wages. I'm not advocating forcing employers to pay for "unearned" or unrealistic wages.....

I'm really not talking about expectations or feelings or anything subjective here. I'm simply saying that there is a market value for labor. (Do we agree on that?) And that if you pay more than the market value of labor it will hurt your overhead, increasing the prices of your goods and services, and thus either hurting everyone's cost of living or putting the company itself out of business and increasing unemployment. Both options here a negative. (Do we agree on this?)

If you are making an objective point about whether or not employers are paying a fair wage relative to production and to the market value of labor, then all I need are some figures and facts to see that demonstrated as a national problem. If there is a problem with companies not paying their employees a fair wage, then I'd certainly like to know about it. I just haven't seen any evidence of such at present.

[Burning Giraffe]

There shouldn't even be a minimum wage let alone a living wage

any price floor such as this naturally creates a surplus

that surplus is unemployment

A don't think a lot of people understand how closely economics and psychology are related, given that the economy is predicated on people's decision making in connection with their values, needs, and desires.

If you give a person or an industry negative or positive reinforcement for something, then you will see more of it. If you give a person or an industry negative or positive punishment for something, you'll see less of it.

So, if you increase taxes on an industry, that's positive punishment. You increase the cost of doing business and inflate the cost of the products and services to the consumers, making them less likely to buy something. This hurts employment. Regulation is also a form of punishment that hurts industries, raises prices, and harms employment.

But if you encourage people to do business, if you make it worth their while, then business increases, capital is created, jobs are created, and things improve and grow. This doesn't mean that there won't still be problems caused by immigration (where most of our poverty exists) or problems caused by fraud, such as we saw with ENRON. But you let the justice system deal with abuses and you let the people determine their own destinies in a free system.

[Osborn F. Enready]

Burning Giraffe, I have to ask you....

Do you see benefit in the trade with China as it exists now? If so, what, and at what DIRECT COST to american workers?

Do you see a link between multinationals using labor in countries like China without labor rights, as damaging to the labor rights in this nation?

[4Reaganomics]

There is absolutely an extreme benefit to trade as it stands with China now. There is a benefit to American workers, because the American consumer sees much cheaper prices and is able to purchase more with their disposable income

They are better off in China then they would be if we weren't there. We have no obligation to provide them some phantom "living wage" that doesn't exist.


International Trade is always mutually beneficial, always

comparative advantage isn't cliche, it is a way of life

[Osborn F. Enready]

Reaganomics said:
There is absolutely an extreme benefit to trade as it stands with China now. There is a benefit to American workers, because the American consumer sees much cheaper prices and is able to purchase more with their disposable income.

You fail to note however that those cheaper prices have come at a direct cost of having less disposable income due to fewer jobs and higher unemployment.

Reaganomics said:
They are better off in China then they would be if we weren't there. We have no obligation to provide them some phantom "living wage" that doesn't exist.

Labor rights and living wage are not interchangeable.

The reason labor in countries like China is so cheap is because the workers are being extorted for labor by the state, and the workers have little to no labor rights or safety standards.

Trade as it is with China is a sellout of the American workers, by the American government, in exchange for funding for an un-necessary war that taxpayers would cough up.

How dare you alledge such a system as we have now is anything even resembling free trade?

How many goods that China imports from the U.S. have tariffs on them from the Chinese government, vs our tariffs on their imported goods here? We are being SCREWED.

Reaganomics said:
International Trade is always mutually beneficial, always

comparative advantage isn't cliche, it is a way of life

Back that up with some facts if you want respect for the statement please.....relevant to our current trade situations with China, India.

[potter]

I would disagree that the "state" in China is responsible for their low wages. It's more supply and demand. Too many workers and not enough jobs. it's a country of 1.5 billion people with a GDP not even equal to the US. If anything the state is responsible for turning that around via the one child rule. The state also imposes mandatory worker safety rules, workers bill of rights, and in some provinces a minimum wage.

Granted these rules do not come close to the extremes we have here, but they help.

I agree completely that those cheap goods have come at a terrible price for US manufacturing and innovation.

[Burning Giraffe]

Burning Giraffe, I have to ask you....

Do you see benefit in the trade with China as it exists now? If so, what, and at what DIRECT COST to american workers?

Do you see a link between multinationals using labor in countries like China without labor rights, as damaging to the labor rights in this nation?

Excellent questions! The direct, immediate benefit is cheaper technological goods and domestic products for poor Americans. Your typical American can afford televisions, cell phones, and telephones. It'd be a much bigger strain if they were paying three or four times as much for American goods. The direct cost to Americans is minimal relative to all the other causes of why manufacturing is moving out of our country.

I think that the United States should relax regulation and taxation in this country as much as possible, to encourage more and more businesses to bring their operations here. We need to be focusing on quality goods and manufacturing. These cheap supplies we buy from China are inexpensive, but they don't last long and we end up spending a fortune in the long run. I think the US needs to encourage technological and industrial business simply by not interfering, making it less expensive and more attractive to do business in the United States.

Remember, the primary "pro" to operating inside the United States has always been a secure and educated society. Democrats and Republicans have undermined our education system and have made our economy much less secure than it has been in the past. Even when we struggled in the late 70s, we were still the safest bet for any business in the world.

I just don't think it does us any good to remove cheap products from our stores, raising the cost of living for America's poor, when we don't have an education system in place to offer them a better way of life.

[4Reaganomics]

In international trade osborne, after trade an economy sees higher "real wages". This concept has been illustrated in every model from Ricardo, to Specific factors, to Heckscher and Ohlin, Stolper, Samuelson, rybczynski, etc.

After we engage in trade, both countries are better off and see higher real wages IN THE LONG RUN.

The issue you are speaking to is people losing their jobs when a country loses comparitive advantage.

In the long run society as a whole sees higher wages, but in the short run some people are put out of work.

It is no longer within our comparative advantage to make clothes here, and when these factories shut down people lost jobs. In the long run these people shifted into areas where we have comparative advantage such as "the service industry".

Thus we have more AMericans working on computers in offices and less in factories and this is not a bad thing.

I admit, the short run job loss that occurs is tough, but protectionism IS NOT THE ANSWER. It hinders economic growth. The true answer rather is to encourage people to change sectors when comparitive advantage is lost, but the interim can be hard at times


International trade in the long run results in lower prices and a benefit to both countries taking part.

[potter]

Giraffe....
I would only amend your post to "an affordable education system" :worship:

[Burning Giraffe]

Giraffe....
I would only amend your post to "an affordable education system" :worship:

It's all about priorities really. Most Americans would rather deprive their children of an education by sending them to extremely expensive, inefficient and ineffable government schools, than forgo a new high definition television; when they could send them to a private school.

[Osborn F. Enready]

Burning Giraffe said:
Excellent questions! The direct, immediate benefit is cheaper technological goods and domestic products for poor Americans. You typical American can afford televisions, cell phones, and telephones. It'd be a much bigger strain if they were paying three or four times as much for American goods. The direct cost to Americans is minimal relative to all the other causes of why manufacturing is moving out of our country.

I think that the United States should relax regulation and taxation in this country as much as possible, to encourage more and more businesses to bring their operations here. We need to be focusing on quality goods and manufacturing. These cheap supplies we buy from China are inexpensive, but they don't last long and we end up spending a fortune in the long run. I think the US needs to encourage technological and industrial business simply by not interfering, making it less expensive and more attractive to do business in the United States.

Remember, the primary "pro" to operating inside the United States has always been a secure and educated society. Democrats and Republicans have undermined our education system and have made our economy much less secure than it has been in the past. Even when we struggled in the late 70s, we were still the safest best for any business in the world.

I just don't think it does us any good to remove cheap products from our stores, raising the cost of living for America's poor, when we don't have an education system in place to offer them a better way of life.

Thats an excellent reply, but I notice you did fail to specifically address my questions with direct answers.

I will say that I agree with most of what you said in your reply, especially the FACT that republicans and democrats have systematicly ruined all that was good about this nation for both business, and its citizens. The value of the dollar, the relatively clear and concise lines of delineation between legal and illegal.

Now that the courts have been totally corrupted through politcal bi-partisan appointments, the Constitution and Bill of Rights which serve as the basis for all Law in this nation are being systematicly dismantled for bi-partisan benefit while all citizens lose everything they have fought for.... property, self-ownership, the right to OWN (not rent) land, free-speech, the right to petition and reform government, free-media, etc.

[4Reaganomics]

Don't forget me Osborne, I want to make a believer out of you in regards to trade, I've got a lot more substance here on economic models and what we see in practice

[Osborn F. Enready]

Reaganomics said:
In international trade osborne, after trade an economy sees higher "real wages". This concept has been illustrated in every model from Ricardo, to Specific factors, to Heckscher and Ohlin, Stolper, Samuelson, rybczynski, etc.

After we engage in trade, both countries are better off and see higher real wages IN THE LONG RUN.

No doubt, but that does not mean the transition should be taking shape as it has. In order to be mutually beneficial, there has to be a reasonable transition based on LEGAL and LABOR rights of accountability. This has NOT been done in NAFTA, CAFTA, GATT, etc. The government is wrongfully, and misguidedly allowing the nation to be dangerously destabilized during this transition in many areas, from currency manipulation, trade manipulation, tariff imbalances, etc.

Reaganomics said:
The issue you are speaking to is people losing their jobs when a country loses comparitive advantage.

A comparitve advantage that is directly due to ill thought out changes in government trade policies.... by a government we elect NOT to do such things.

Reaganomics said:
In the long run society as a whole sees higher wages, but in the short run some people are put out of work.

This can be accounted for and addressed if transition is done correctly..... and it wasn't.

Reaganomics said:
It is no longer within our comparative advantage to make clothes here, and when these factories shut down people lost jobs. In the long run these people shifted into areas where we have comparative advantage such as "the service industry".

Who is talking about clothes? I am talking about cars, and major industry jobs which are being replaced by service sector jobs paying sometimes as much as 250% less per hour of labor. That is NOT an adequate transition model.

Reaganomics said:
Thus we have more AMericans working on computers in offices and less in factories and this is not a bad thing.

Unless YOU are the one who suffers the loss of a good paying job used to support a home, family, and lifestyle that you can't afford any longer due to idiots in Washinton not knowing a damn thing about why they are elected.

I am all for free trade, but that IS NOT what is what we are seeing. This is unbalanced, manipulated trade to our own loss, mainly to support ill founded ill thought out policy implementation that was sold on a bill of bullshit.(fraud)

Reaganomics said:
I admit, the short run job loss that occurs is tough, but protectionism IS NOT THE ANSWER. It hinders economic growth. The true answer rather is to encourage people to change sectors when comparitive advantage is lost, but the interim can be hard at times

I am not saying protectionism is the answer. I am saying SMART protectionism is the ONLY CHOICE until tariffs are dropped on our own goods in those nations we trade with freely, and until labor and individual rights issues are assured in LAW within that nation.
Anything less is simply disenfranchisement, and a wholesale sellout of American wealth.

Reaganomics said:
International trade in the long run results in lower prices and a benefit to both countries taking part.

Again, I don't disagree if that TRANSITION is done with proper tradeoffs until complete. It was not, it has never been since 1972, and now we are seeing the results that bi-partisan monopoly on power has brought about.

[4Reaganomics]

1. I believe that even with their labor laws, that the chinese people are better off with American companies such as NIKE there employing people than if there were no American companies at all

2. I am glad we come to agreeance about free trade. The only issue is what to do in the interim when comparative advantage places people out of jobs. Some have suggested government trade assistance where they gov't helps people learn new tasks and gives them financial support in the interim, which is what many of my professors preach.

I'm uncertain. I think it is a shame that certain people get placed out of work due to it becoming more efficient for another country to do their job, but all things considered I am unsure as to whether to provide tax payer funds to assist the transition, or to let people undergo it themselves

I lean towards some sort of trade assistance, but am honestly unsure

3. I agree the high tariffs we pay overseas are a problem. Raising our tariffs to match them is not the answer in my opinion. The answer is pursuing as many free trade agreements as possible and eliminating tariffs all together, but it is something that will involve a long process.

(I used clothes in that prior post as an example, any good we have lost comparative advantage is interchangeable into what I was saying)

[Osborn F. Enready]

Reaganomics said:
1. I believe that even with their labor laws, that the chinese people are better off with American companies such as NIKE there employing people than if there were no American companies at all

I don't argue that at all, not even a little. My point is I didn't elect my government to better the Chinese people.... I elected them to enforce my Constitution and Bill of Rights, and to protect my national security..... something the bi-partisan trade and foreign aid policy directly contradicts.

Reaganomics said:
2. I am glad we come to agreeance about free trade. The only issue is what to do in the interim when comparative advantage places people out of jobs. Some have suggested government trade assistance where they gov't helps people learn new tasks and gives them financial support in the interim, which is what many of my professors preach.

I disagree with that approach, for obvious reasons we are seeing around us. The transition as it was done "sold-out" American workers before they could span the transitional requirements of their own accord. All this did was UNreasonably trouble American citizens lives, while marginally increasing wages in China, yet GREATLY increasing multi-national corporations profit. Both laborers got sold out to benefit the producers, who are being let out of their corporate contracts issued to their laborers for pensions, etc.

Reaganomics said:
I'm uncertain. I think it is a shame that certain people get placed out of work due to it becoming more efficient for another country to do their job, but all things considered I am unsure as to whether to provide tax payer funds to assist the transition, or to let people undergo it themselves

The smartest thing to do would to have been GRADUAL and EQUAL in the concessions for the change. That didn't happen. China reaped the bulk of the benefit along with multi-national corporate profits, while the laborers in both nations suffered, as does the cost to our national infrastructure, education, etc. I see it as criminal, and worthy of impeachment and trial.

Reaganomics said:
3. I agree the high tariffs we pay overseas are a problem. Raising our tariffs to match them is not the answer in my opinion. The answer is pursuing as many free trade agreements as possible and eliminating tariffs all together, but it is something that will involve a long process.

You too easily dismiss the cost that opinion has on the American working classes, and the detrimental impact it will have on national and state infrastructure in my opinion, as well as the legal ramifications as we are now seeing in the difficulty of assuring incoming goods meet basic safety requirements from hazardous materials, and results of lower working standards.


Reaganomics said:
(I used clothes in that prior post as an example, any good we have lost comparative advantage is interchangeable into what I was saying)

Fair enough, but my main bone of contention is with the huge number of union, good paying jobs with low paying, non-union, service jobs. That is not an adequate transitional trade off, and one of my main arguments against the last 20+ years of illogical trade policy.

[4Reaganomics]

I'm with you on our poor foreign aid policy and current poor trade policy.

I am completely against subsidies and quotas and completely for free trade

I understand your issue with the U.S. losing a good amount of 25$ an hour factory jobs in small towns and I will admit that it is tough. I the long run I see those jobs being replaced with jobs we can do more efficiently and short term effects will be cheaper prices for consumers


If we had completely free trade with no tariffs with countries what would be your issue with it? I know the issue is the immediate loss of work for those who lost comparative advantage but I am failing to see what you mean by GRADUAL

Should we attempt to gradually pursue free trade while training workers to shift industry in your opinion? Because I am not necessarily opposed to this. I actually think it would be beneficial to give workers in a struggling industry adequate time to prepare for a change in comparative advantage.

[Osborn F. Enready]

Reaganomics said:
If we had completely free trade with no tariffs with countries what would be your issue with it?

I really wouldn't have one if the currency issues were resolved and individual rights were equal (to the U.S., not UN concept of rights) regarding property, labor rights, legal liability, etc.

Part of a free market however is an EQUAL market in regards to legal liability for products and services rendered, something greatly lacking now.

That said, I don't think China will in my lifetime, be a safe investment for foreign assets, due to their ideological issue with socialism/communism.

Reaganomics said:
I know the issue is the immediate loss of work for those who lost comparative advantage but I am failing to see what you mean by GRADUAL

We shouldn't have removed or reduced our tariffs until our products received the same treatment in their market, as well as "labor rights" or individual rights has played very little role at all in the opening of trade barriers.

If two nations that trade with each other freely have widely different labor rights policies, all the industry will gravitate to the workforce they can exploit for the least amount of money or insurance liability if the product turned out is marginally as good as the previous product.

We failed miserably in this area to tie individual rights to labor rights, and both to the necessity of both in a free market.

Reaganomics said:
Should we attempt to gradually pursue free trade while training workers to shift industry in your opinion?

Yes, that could have been a by-product of negotiations over individual rights and labor rights implementation in those countries taking longer to hammer out, while incremental changes were occurring. I blame the need for funding for the Iraq war for a lot of the "haste" in the transitional phase. Bush's adminstration made a call there I just don't and won't agree with.

Reaganomics said:
Because I am not necessarily opposed to this. I actually think it would be beneficial to give workers in a struggling industry adequate time to prepare for a change in comparative advantage.

I do also. I think even more importantly, that the time would have been a natural issue if individual and labor rights were more involved in the transition, as those issues take time to code into law through the proper or acceptable channels.

I have no doubt we will recover from this destabilization, I just think a lot of people were affected that wouldn't have had to be affected if the policies were implemented with more oversight and more rational, logically based people in charge of the decison making.

Trade suffers from the same thing all of our policy suffers from.... a lack of competition and debate at the political level under the bi-partisan monopoly on power.

[NoMoreDems-Reps]

The REPS&DEMS are spending your tax money like drunken sailors ! They (we) can not
afford to pay for all the crap the REPS&DEMS are doing ! We can not live the way we have
become accustom to without China (and other Countries) !

We owe China about $1,000,000,000,000 ! The REPS&DEMS are setting us up for a big fall!
And most Americans are just following along like Sheeps to the slaughter !

If you hate America and want to see it destroyed you will vote for a REP or a DEM !
If you love American and want to see her prosper you will vote for some one like
Ron Paul of Ralph Nader ....

[Englehard]

We should not be reliant on China, we should rely on our selves as much as possible. We definitely should not be reliant on a Communist one party dictatorship that is the largest police state in the world.

[Osborn F. Enready]

Englehard said:
We should not be reliant on China, we should rely on our selves as much as possible. We definitely should not be reliant on a Communist one party dictatorship that is the largest police state in the world.

Seems like that should be common sense, shouldn't it? ;)