To: All manufacturing people.

USA Fair Trade ^ | 11/15/03 | cp124

[Willie Green]

You Willie Green people NEVER take into account the humongous U.S. tax burden or the lunatic environmental and zoning regulations that force companies to go overseas.

Liar.
No wonder you didn't ping me to this response.

[general_re]

You still haven't answered my very first question - if manufacturing capacity is evaporating, why has manufacturing output massively increased over the last decade?

[Reeses]

What I have done is keep things small enough so that I don't have to hire anyone. I also use some automation for the same reason. When I started I was planning to hire 6 to 10 full time workers. What I found out was by the time the taxes and OSHA were done with me I could no longer compete on the world market.

If you had hired 10 workers you would have made a bundle for the government via their personal income taxes. The government should reward employers that create taxpayers, not burden employers with taxes, penalties, and legal liabilities. I think a 3 percent cut of the tax revenues generated would be fair, and would go a long way towards stopping the flow of American jobs to China and India. Employment is the only area of business where businesses lose money for making someone else huge amounts. It doesn't make sense.

Machines don't pay any taxes. Why does our government reward business for employing machines and tax them for hiring people?

[E. Pluribus Unum]

1)GE is Power Generation, etd. and not just military.
2)You must be anti-military.
3)We service over 3,000 companies. Non-government companies like valve manufacturers, construction, gun manufactuers (Ruger, Savage, Remington, Bushmaster), job shops, tank manufactuers, etc,etc.

1) GE HAS LOTS OF GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS.
2) I WANT MY TAX DOLLARS TO BE USED EFFICIENTLY
3) I GUESS YOU DON'T WANT RUGER SAVAGE REMINGTON BUSHMASTER TO MAKE THE MOST COST-EFFECTIVE PRODUCTS THEY CAN

I have changed industries three times in my career because of changing economic conditions.

I suggest you do the same.

[1rudeboy]

Can't the people who believe in unfair trade come up with an intelligent response to back up thier beliefs other than the unions, the unions, the unions.

More proof that you don't actually read the threads to which you post.

[cp124]

Which department at WalMart do you work in?

[cp124]

1) I didn't say they didn't. We do work for power generation.
2) You must not be going to vote for Bush in 2004.
3) I do and that is why they buy from us. We provide a good product and are efficent. Taxes, regulations, and lawyers are killing us.

[moodyskeptic]

All my clients are American companies who used to manufacture here. They are like friendly dogs who get beat occasionally, cower in the corner, remain loyal until one day they run away.

The beating came from juvenile liberal regulation, labor demands and liabilty lawsuits. The dog finally had enough, and don't kid yourself that these are not patriotic veteran dogs.

[NMC EXP]

Free trade is to fair trade as Capitalism is to socialism.

So in your opinion the Founding Fathers were socialists?

Regards

J.R.

[maui_hawaii]

If your customers' businesses are getting their asses kicked by WalMart, then they aren't buying as much from you, are they?

Wow. Thats some serious intellectual rationale on your part. You gotta be a super genuis. Is that you Jethro?

Thats the exact point.

We have a trade policy that benefits Wal Mart and no one else.

This is the exact problem with the economy.

Something like 70% of the working population work in small business. Its not all just about manufacturing. But when manufacturing declines, it reverberates around the US economy. When one link in the chain gets nailed, it hurts everyone.

The domination of Wal Mart is bad for the economy. To have a trade policy designed around what Wal Mart wants is bad. To have one that is anti-labor as we have now, is monumentally stupid.

Its not all just Wal Mart though. Its manufacturers of all sorts...whether its industrial or whatever.

There is a way to better manage trade, but right now its not being done.

What do we do? We find countries that are our friends and who are willing to open up to the US. The current FTAs are fine. Now, for every other country that doesn't have an FTA, they get 150% tarriffs.

A global free for all leaves everyone in the pot. The 150% tarriff plan will focus investment and trade in those FTA areas like a lazer beam, thus raising the standard of living in those areas. It will then create a larger market for goods and services.

In the case of Mexico, it would help solve tons of problems from drug trafficing to immigration.

In the end Mexicans would be as rich as Canadians and WE would be the ones selling to them.

Thats never going to happen with the current system.

[maui_hawaii]

The solution would be to encourage Japan to manufacture the hell out of cars...in Japan and Germany. Get them to give as many subsidies as they can...

We would then give them ZERO tarriffs.

Japan and Germany would then eat US car manufacturers lunch. They would take them to the cleaners and take so much marketshare from them they would CRY for tarriffs.

We have just applied China trade/steel policy to the auto industry.

If they want it, lets give it to them.

It would be GREAT for the consumer, because I would get a brand new Toyota for 60% of the cost of a GM and the quality is WAY better...

[Willie Green]

The current FTAs are fine. Now, for every other country that doesn't have an FTA, they get 150% tarriffs.

Do current FTAs include the provision that other signatory nations will also levy a 150% tariff against imports from non-participating nations?

If not, all you've done is set up a a system that is easily circumvented by transhipment through one of the participating nations.

The only REAL solution is to exert sovereign authority over our own borders and levy a relatively low (10~15%), flat-rate "revenue tariff" on ALL imported goods, regardless of nation of origin.

"We are infinitely better off without treaties of commerce with any nation."

--Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1815.

[maui_hawaii]

Sounds like your company is a glorified welfare-queen, sopping up the crumbs from government contracts paid for by taxpayers.

The only welfare queen is here is Wal Mart and those companies that manufacture in China.

Wal Mart could not exist in its current form without the handouts and welfare from the Chinese government. Thats exactly what it is.

So Wal Mart depends on welfare for its supplies, and the increasing roles of welfare recipients for its sales.

[Held_to_Ransom]

No body wants to remember that the US became the supreme production country by have millions of immigrants work their fingers to the bone for pennies. Instead, they prefer to support China on it's path to industrial ascendency over the US by following the mantra of free trade which reduced the former manufacturing leader in the world to a third rate nation. I refer to England.

[maui_hawaii]

I am talking about setting up a trade cartel amonst the willing.

The whole cartel has to participate, otherwise its useless.

The point behind what I am talking about as opposed to flat tarriffs (which we have them right now) is to expand the market base through development.

Market base is people who CONSUME goods and services, not SUPPLY them.

[Willie Green]

I am talking about setting up a trade cartel amonst the willing.

Cartels (such as OPEC) inherently violate the principals of true free trade. Revenue tariffs do not.

[maui_hawaii]

Between members it would be true free trade,including deregulation and the lot, between non members it wouldn't be.

[E. Pluribus Unum]

The domination of Wal Mart is bad for the economy.

Correction: It's bad for unions and inefficient businesses.

[maui_hawaii]

Correction: Its bad for businesses, particularly small ones.

Taking advantage of global corporate welfare doesn't make one more efficient.

[bert]

I went outside to look.....the sky is not falling.