To: All manufacturing people.

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

[E. Pluribus Unum]

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

Neither does protectionism.

WalMart benefits the consumer.

The fact that the last economic downturn was as shallow and short as it was has everything to do with WalMart's ability to sell things cheaper because they have automated every aspect of the purchasing and stocking process of their stores.

But screw consumers. Who cares about them?

Let's force them to buy your stuff instead.

[gcruse]

There is nothing free about fair. Fair means flattening outcomes to compensate for deficiencies in input. The result is allowing inferior, higher cost, less efficient inputs to be free of the consequences of their shortcomings. This is socialism, too. Everyone gets the same thing regardless of the quality of their input.

[maui_hawaii]

Protectionism in its right forms can and does definately help consumers. It can and often does help efficiency. If I can send a product from Idaho to California in 2 days, its certainly more efficient than sending it from China in two weeks.

Cheaper doesn't mean more efficient.

Wal Mart has this convaluded measure of helping the consumer. Its not all Wal Mart though. True. Its an overall policy of trading that Wal Mart has tapped into. The plan failed though, so its time to retool things.

Lets have a policy that runs people out of business, but gives 'cheap products'. Wal Marts goals are to get themselves rich. All of that noble BS is just that, BS.

Its no different than being kicked out in the street to live in your car, but to show grattitude for the process.

Not just picking on Wal Mart, but I have less money in my pocket because of our current trade policies. I am not alone.

If my income drops 25%, but Wal Mart drops prices by 5%, am I supposed to be happy about that? You are saying I should.

Yeah, screw consumers. Who does care about them? Certainly not you. If you were all THAT concerned you would be worried about increasing the INCOME of consumers. Cheap products DO NOT make my paycheck increase in size. Stretching my paycheck is not increasing my paycheck in size. A thousand a month is a thousand a month. Two thousand is two thousand.

Cheap imports removes choice from consumers.

Unlike your one track mind, its not just one or the other. Its a combination of the two. The current trade policy completely ignores whats coming IN to consumers pockets.

[maui_hawaii]

Let's force them to buy your stuff instead.

Lets force them to buy Wal Mart or Chinese imports. I guess that makes it ok.

[bluejay]

Turn the clock back 100 years and you could write the same article about agriculture in America. BTW, manufacturing jobs are shrinking world wide (yes, in China as well) not just in the United States.

[southriver4]

please allow me to add my two cents of direct result. I worked for a compact disc manufacturer in Central VA for nine years. It was bought out by a larger concern which was subsequently bought out by an even larger concern. Suits determined that my plant needed to be closed and sent down the Mexico. There ya go. 1,000 jobs gone.

[Jorge]

George Bush believes in free (and unfair) trade regardless of the outcome.

That explains the Bush steel tarrifs.

[Jorge]

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.

Add to this the out of control litigation here in the states, and we have a business unfriendly environment.

The same reason business is fleeing California.

[Age of Reason]

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.

So labor's cheaper overseas because life is cheaper overseas--err, I mean because the cost of living is cheaper overseas?

Funny thing is I recently learned that American companies sell medicine to third world countries for less than those companies sell those same medicines to America.

And so every time an American worker buys a pill, he is subsidizing the very same low cost of living in other countries that is costing him his job . . .

This week I learn that American publishers sell textbooks to the Third World for less than they sell those same books to American students.

And so American students are subsidizing the low cost of living in the Third World, every time an American kid pays more for a textbook.

Once again, Americans subsidize the low cost of living in the Third World.

I wonder in how many other ways American workers are unwittingly subsidizing the low cost of living in countries that are stealing American jobs?

[E. Pluribus Unum]

Lets force them to buy Wal Mart or Chinese imports. I guess that makes it ok.

They are being forced to by WalMart products... how?

[E. Pluribus Unum]

Cheaper doesn't mean more efficient.

That's something a less efficient person would say.

[North Coast Conservative]

Do you watch for labels when you shop? I do.

I try to avoid the made in China items, and it is increasingly getting harder.

I have often told my daughters that the Chinese will sell us the rope that they hang us with.

Does it cost more to buy things that ARE NOT MADE IN CHINA? You bet. But at least right now you still have a job so you can afford to buy things.

Do we as middle and upper level managers have an obligation to steer our companies away from patronizing China? I feel we do.

Don't Buy Chinese Goods!

In God We Trust…..Semper Fi