Posted on 05/09/2009 12:47:21 PM PDT by Cringing Negativism Network
Yesterday I happened upon a post by a fellow FReeper. In retrospect, I am sorry for responding rudely to their post - and I hope they happen upon this apology.
The post was presenting their heartfelt opinion that American industry and our system itself must be allowed to come apart so that something better can replace it.
It was a Rand-ian position. The system is becoming oppressive, therefore we must weaken it.
That being said, I'm fairly positive that NAFTA (that Ronald Reagan initiated and George H.W. Bush signed) has environmental provisions also . . . but no one will bother to tell us what they are, or the ones they want to talk about. Probably because the rest of us (if we so choose--it just won't be as fun as it was last night) could then actually determine the provisions' history.
What's illustrative about this thread is the lengths to which our budding FR Bolsheviks will go to make certain the federal government sticks its nose in our business: Reagan was a Hero of the Fatherland because he slapped tariffs on motorcycles--but when he reduced tariffs on Canadian and Mexican products he gets airbrushed out of the picture.
Even the airbrushing isn't that good. "Reagan wouldn't have approved of NAAEC, so he hypothetically (let's stay focused) would've rescinded his approval of NAFTA." C'mon, Mojave, step it up a few notches.
_____
*Of course, now that I have done the legwork, the frantic Google searching will begin anew.
No kidding... I’m in a hotel room in Ningbo, China right now. Tomorrow I’ll be at a Chinese factory overseeing the first production run of a new woofer I designed in America (Woodinville, WA to be exact). Supporting electronics were designed by an Argentinean and the enclosure was designed by a Czech mechanical engineer, with the system voiced by an Italian.
Some of the woofer parts are made in China, some in Malaysia, and some in Brazil. It will be shipped to Australia to be installed in a finished, powered speaker system that will be sold in Europe by an American brand. By my count, that’s at least 8 countries and five continents!
I figure in the anti-capitalist group, I’m a traitor to at least 2/3rds the world’s population with this single deal alone...
Cheers!
NAAEC was one of the supplemental agreements to NAFTA that preceded Congressional approval of NAFTA. Nice foot shot.
I'm fairly positive that NAFTA (that Ronald Reagan initiated
Bzzzzt. Wrong.
Ronald Reagan proposed a North American common market in 1981. He never created the NAFTA agreement. He never signed the NAFTA agreement. He never negotiated the NAFTA agreement.
President Bush first notified Congress of his intention to negotiate with Mexico for the creation of a NAFTA agreement in 1990, after President Ronald Reagan left office. The first diplomatic negotiations to create NAFTA didn't even begin until 1991. The bill implementing NAFTA wasn't passed by Congress until it was modified by multiple supplemental agreements. NAFTA, praised by your fellow leftists as "the greenest trade agreement ever" was signed into law by Bill Clinton on December 8, 1993 and became effective January 1, 1994.
Try again.
If you include cost as part of that qualification, then I don’t see a big problem with it. I’ve worked contracts with some of the top H1-B companies (like Microsoft), and seen the use of foreign workers here.
And I’ve worked contract with large companies who overseas much of their design operations (like Dell) to lower cost as well.
Price is ALWAYS a concern, and every company would be smart to take it into consideration. But it’s just one factor! In my own industry, EVERY factory AND client I work with already has transducer design engineers (which is what I do). I am not the cheapest, either; my hourly rate is probably the highest you’ll find in this field, and I require royalties on every product sold. I am expensive.
Why am I hired, though? Because I provide the best value to the client. The project is done ahead of schedule, hits all operational goals, and I make sure it gets built and get built right. Rarely is there a revision required because of a design issue (cosmetics and marketing are always changing); a second revision because of engineering issues doesn’t happen.
I provide value - high quality, very fast, and very thorough engineering. And I provide support - I go to the factories to make sure product is built correctly. My team inspects the factories regularly, inspects the suppliers, confirms the quality of the parts independently.
That’s the value. That’s what I offer that no one else does. And that’s why companies hire me, the American at the extremely high cost up-front, and the back-loaded deal as well.
Americans can make sure they’re qualified in ALL aspects if we use all our brains. Why is Honda making cars in Ohio, rather than Japan, Mexico, or China? Because it’s CHEAPER. Not just shipping costs, but the skills you get from the Ohio worker! Cut out the UAW and the total cost (factoring in errors and speed) and while the Ohio worker is paid a much higher hourly salary, they are a better value.
The American worker needs to realize that NO ONE is guaranteed a job. You have the right to the pursuit of happiness; you have NO right to be happy! It is a global economy because technology makes it so (it is pretty low cost to ship products around the world). We have to compete globally.
Companies pay for value; they will buy the most for the lowest total cost of acquisition/ownership. That is the American worker if they will prove it.
I fear, though, that we are raising generations of expectant dependents with no initiative, who would prefer to whine and moan and ask the Government to protect and feed them rather than knuckle down and outright compete like our grandparents and great grandparents did.
The American spirit and the cultural advantage we had (innovation, the can-do attitude, optimism) are being bred out of us, and that is why we’re starting to lose our value. That which made the American worker so prized is being destroyed.
I both agree *and* disagree with you: I think too often, companies “cheat” their workers by looking only at front-line labor costs, not counting the extra costs built in by offshoring /outsourcing, which are spread out throughout the product or system lifecycle, hidden under a multitude of budget items.
The issue is that if enough other companies are doing the same thing, then there is no *net* disadvantage to a company by being inefficient in such a fashion; or else there are other factors (local laws, tariffs, taxes, what not) which obscure the effect.
Cheers!
To a large extent, I would agree with you. And the companies that make those bad decisions will suffer in the marketplace.
However, with the primary H1-B and offshoring companies being massive, and the Obama Administration now considering them ‘too large to fail’ the normal marketplace correction can’t happen.
OR, the Government uses tariffs to protect those inefficient/short-term-thinking companies, again removing the penalties from bad decisions.
Stop protecting American companies from failure, and we’ll get back to where we need to be!
But that flies in the face of the simplistic, protectionist “Buy American!” groupies here...
So now you are an expert on NAAEC, after I bring it up . . . I see how this works, you piss-ant.
I've referred to the environmental supplements to NAFTA negotiated by Clinton in several previous posts. Are you always such a blatant liar?
Why don't you falsely claim that Reagan negotiated NAFTA again?
Now, today, we also find ourselves engaged in expanding peaceful commerce across the world. We will work to expand our opportunities in international markets through the Uruguay round of trade negotiations [that's what created the WTO, Mojave, you blithering idiot] and to complete an historic free trade arrangement between the world's two largest trading partners, Canada and the United States. Our basic trade policy remains the same: We remain opposed as ever to protectionism, because America's growth and future depend on trade. But we would insist on trade that is fair and free. We are always willing to be trade partners but never trade patsies.In any case, Mojave, you are an odd person: you are unwilling to testify to your beliefs (as demonstrated by PugetSoundSoldier above), yet you claim particular knowledge of the beliefs of people (Reagan, specifically) whom you haven't studied. Thank you for your responses on this this thread.
That wasn't NAFTA. Are you really that dishonest? Or just plain ignorant?
Hey, I’m not the one trying to muddy the water . . . you are.
You’re the one pretending that Clinton was Reagan.
And you’re the one who can’t prove what you’re claiming.
What am I thinking? You’re the guy who can’t even give PugetSoundSoldier a straight answer.
Reagan didn’t negotiate or sign NAFTA. Deal with it.
That’s right. I should ignore the historical record and place my faith in you, Mojave, Internet King of the Unsourced Assertion.
That's what you've done every step of the way.
Hmmmm Okay ... we tried free trade and what is sitting in the White House and who controls both of the legislative branches?
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.