Posted on 12/04/2014 10:28:07 AM PST by central_va
Speaking of simple minds, how come protectionists never consider the adverse effect of a tarrif on steel (for example) on companies that consume steel?
Yup, and he gets paid handsomely for it only because listeners like what they hear. So while you say he is only an entertainer, he serves a valuable purpose, however phony you believe it to be. He also likely motivates many to get more involved in “the process”, while he is cashing in.
/johnny
"Offshoring is the relocation, by a company, of a business process from one country to another—typically an operational process, such as manufacturing, or supporting processes, such as accounting. Even state governments employ offshoring.[1] More recently, offshoring has been associated primarily with the outsourcing of technical and administrative services supporting domestic and global operations from outside the home country ("offshore outsourcing"), by means of internal (captive) or external (outsourcing) delivery models."
Makes sense to me ...
Avoiding communism also makes sense to me.
Off shoring ensures US consumers pay twice for everything, once at the retailers and again in higher taxes to support the unemployed manufacturing workers.
You’d rather a communist country make everything for us, making them stronger to avoid communism. That makes sense in some kind of crazy Alice in wonderland place in your head.
Tariffs raise the price of everything, domestic and imported, leaving less money for the consumer to pay the workers who lose their jobs because everything costs more.
Domestic producers still have to compete with each other keeping prices down. But then again you and I have been allover this before. You are a gloBULList and I am a Patriot. A "Protectionist" like every founding father was.
Ok, so the tariff we raised to protect high-paying jobs will be ineffective in raising prices so employers can pay high wages?
Hard to find one company that manufactured in the USA losing money, they were making a profit. All went overseas to gain a few more pennies on the dollar. Tupperware is a good example of a profitable company making good money but wanted to go overseas the get that few more pennies profit. Domestic greed is good. Getting in bed with CHiComs you become my enemy.
Protectionism, at least that kind offered by Hamilton was a tool that was deemed necessary to cut the umbilical cord between Britain and the infant USA.
It was used again after the war of 1812....for similar reasons.
If there were to arise a similar situation after a war was fought, I would probably, out of spite and retribution, be in favor of it.
But without that sort of catalyst, and during a period of enhanced global interdependence and trade, I would conclude that it is highly counterproductive at this time and place.
Having said that you still need to vigorously defend against provable government subsidized dumping that could disrupt domestic industry.
Generally we use a tactic called “name and shame”.
If that does not work, stronger measures can be used. It was this very sort of issue that prompted the last steel tariff against China.
Far as I know it resolved after that.
Buzzword alert. This dependence is artificial.
Yes you are........Not only that but you're blind to the fact that Rush has been a major critic of our government policies that are driving our business overseas...........
He's NEVER been a proponent of it but sees it as a necessary route to profitability in a climate of US policy that attempts to over regulate domestic companies......
I just don’t look to him for political leadership.
So do I. And in answer to the follow-up question: machined steel and aluminum parts which go to companies like Steelcase, Nucraft, and Stryker (by no means a complete list) to be assembled into furniture, medical equipment, etc.
Actually, it is quite real.
It became normal sometime after the “just in time” inventory controls became widely used and has increased since.
To deny this is to deny reality and the very existence of global competition and trade.
If you do that, then you join a category of people that it is difficult to pin down as being simply a little ignorant or just stupid.
**** “Anyone relying on an entertainer for political leadership is a lo-info idiot.” ****
Used to be lo-info until I heard Rush ... now I see him as a Recruiter / Entertainer. He is the one that switched my light on and I started to understand but that was during the Clarence Thomas Hearings a long time ago ... he was the only one in Media that seemed to agree with me.
Now “I am so screwed” cause I get my info from FR, you and Laz
:^)
TT
I'm just a cook.
You are screwed. Unless it involves a recipe.
/johnny
Obama is the CINC, whether anyone likes it or not. Rush doesn't do that.
In theory, Obama could veto legislation, should Reid let it get to him. Rush can't do that.
/johnny
That's not Rush's job and one he has refuted time and time again over his lifetime on the air.......But you knew that.
Just curious, why this HATE Rush thread now?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.