A Plan to Save American Manufacturing

TradeAlert.org ^ | Wednesday, December 31, 2003 | Kevin L. Kearns, Alan Tonelson, and William Hawkins

[ninenot]

Ah, you made the point, J.

But let me ask you this: what's more important? the bottom line or the country as a whole?

It's about time that US policy was implemented to favor the US, not anybody else.

[Paul Ross]

[gooleyman]

...you'll spend a long time, including time in your grave, before most of them are abrogated...

I'd like to pospone the start-time of the grave sentence as long as I can, but I agree that it is an uphill battle. Albeit, one that we must take on. "If not us, who...If not now, when". I got into a discussion with my cousin on New Years Eve night. He is a Reagan/Dubya hater but agreed (finally) with me that the federal debt needed to be tackled and paid off. I told him that if we had done what Reagan wanted to do 23 years ago, we wouldn't be in the shape we're in. VERY, VER-R-R-Y reluctanly, he had to agree with that, but he still didn't want to cut any programs without some grand and glorious Blue Ribbon Commission Study of all departments of Government. I know that's off the subject and I got in trouble the last time I did that when someone (NOT YOU) misunderstood, but I had to say it.

-----
What would happen if GWB were to dump EEO??

I would immmediately buy stock in TAR manufacturers and duck-pluckers, because there would be a great demand for both of there products. Maybe that's how I'll make my second million. I gave up a long time ago on making the first. (Old Joke)

-----
Ever see any of them actually reduce their incomes?

And I won't until we can whip up a groundswell in support of across the board cuts. Ain't happenin' any time soon, but that's a dream of mine. There's no incentive now for real cuts. And I don't mean "reductions in the rate of growth."

-----
...unless you're ready to organize and lead the next Tea Party.

By the way...when's our next meeting?...smile

[ninenot]

May be that that's what we'll have to organize: tea parties.

[nmh]

That is what I've seen coming from those in your situation. It is sad.

Sorry, bub, I don't resort to personal attacks. Sniping doesn't go well in a debate.

It is you who resorts to that since facts don't bear you out.

Government has NOTHING to do with moving mfg. jobs to a country that will do it for less. It's strictly business. You appear to think that keeping those jobs here and charging ten or twenty times as much is the route to take. LOL! No one should be paid more than a job is worth and that is what you are suggesting. You are also belitteling folks by suggesting that mfg, for instance is the ONLY job they can do. How insulting and demeaning.

Sorry, but the Government IS subsidizing outsourcing and offshoring through the Import/Export bank and other programs designed to facilitate overseas investment. The insulting and demeaning part about it is that the American Taxpayer is financing his own unemployment. Those are the facts. If you have others, please post them.

Npo the government is not subsidizing outsourced jobs. That is sheer paranoia. That is not the function of the import/export bank. You are trying to apply a simplistic definitioin to them that has nothing to do with their function. As always you post no facts to support this because they do not exist. It's sheer fabrication on your part.

Your "go eat cake" stuff must be home grown misguided wisdom or something ...

Actually, its a classical quote (updated for this argument) from the French Revolution. Of course, we all know how Marie Antionette ended up, right?

It's not apllicable here.

It is YOU who is purposing more government to REQUIRE jobs for those who won't do soemthing else through laws. It's the typical liberal mentality. In real life it doesn't work and it won't work now either.

I've said no such thing; that's a fabrication. Go back and re-read. I advocate *tariffs* which are a 100% Constitutional solution. If going straight to the US Constitution is "liberal" then we are all liberals here by that argument. Tariffs even out the differences in economies.

Tarrifs were not originally used in the way you wish to use them - as isiolatiunists. Your goal will not be achieved through them. You want to require that the U.S. keep jobs here where the cost surpassed the value created. It won't work. Business people will simply purchase the good or service elswhere at the proper market rate.

Reducing Government interference domestically is the other side of the equation. The only thing Government should be doing is facilitating economic development by staying out of the market and permitting domestic industries some breathing room by applying either appropriate revenue tariffs to permit tax reductions -or- use revenue from tariffs to fund compliance if they insist on silly regulations. Liberal argument? Hardly. 200-year old argument. If anything, its reactionary and straight from the GOP platforms of the 1800s..

You can't tarriff a society back into it's hayday fopr output that is over priced. I agree though get the government out of the economy and give taxpayers their money.

Add to that the fact that manufacturing has historically been the key for immigrants and other low-educated folk to work their way into the middle class. Remove that and the consequence is a demand for MORE Government. Why not head that off before it starts unless you accept more Government as a consequence?

Things change! Can't you get that through your head? It is you who is demanded MORE government through trying to keep these jobs here. Raising the bar will also push people to better themselves. You have it totally reversed.

These folks will vote for Dean. He wants government to be the answer from womb to tomb. The truth is those with brains and don't mind using them will find a way. The cream always rises to the top. There will always be losers as well ...

Why not give the people who want Dean an alternative? Facilitate them making it on their own so they don't need to ask for a Government handout? Give them a little boost by taxing the competition from overseas so that domestic industry can take a breather and grow?

I'm a conservative. I am not worried about giving others a "Dean alternative". GOOD GRIEF! My concern is people like yourself who are so addicted to government making everything better and not being able THINK straight. Inshort my concern is people NO LONGER THINKING and using common sense, in general.

Of course, if we sit back and do nothing, we'll get more calls for more Government. Personally, as I have said before, I want to head that off before they get their chance to put their man in charge. "The cream" as you put it, will be taxed out of existance if the Deanies get their way. Why would anyone want to afford them the opportunity to do that? It makes no sense to give the opportunity.

It is YOU who is pushing for government TARRIFS. It is YOU who is advocating jobs stay here that are NO longer competitive in the world. It is YOU who wants to force TARRIFS on more competitve good/services so the overpriced goods/services can compete. It's ridiculous! What we need to do is RAISE THE BAR so we have a competitve workforce.

I also think we need to revise our immigration policy to get BETTER people to help us to do it./;

[XBob]

You might wish to consult Tom Peters, a student of Peter F. Drucker's philosophy:

The Circle of Innovation: You Can't Shrink Your Way to Greatness
Tom Peters, Thomas J. Peters, Foreword by Dean LeBaron

a landmark book. It is meant, he writes, to both "terrify" and "enlighten." These are "times of matchless peril for those who fail to grasp the nettle...and times of matchless opportunity for those who do."

Some of the radical ideas he explains for continued success in the business world include:

how every "jobholder" can be transformed into a full-fledged businessperson
how to convert sluggish staff units into Vital Centers of Intellectual Capital Accumulation
how to build great systems -- which go far beyond nuts and bolts
why -- in a crowded marketplace -- branding is far more important than before

The hallmarks of the Tom Peters legend are an insatiable curiosity, an agile intellect, a pragmatic perspective, and an uncanny ability to gauge the global zeitgeist. These qualities are all brought to bear as Peters sets out to engage, enrage, and ultimately empower his readers amid forces that are reshaping not only business but every aspect of human experience.

[XBob]

385 - You know, I have been waiting for your resume for that $100 per month job I have for you. However, it is becoming readily apparent that you are underqualified. I do have another for $100, per year, which you may fill, no thinking required, and supply your own gloves, but please send resume first, as I am again not sure you are qualified for that job, as it requires the applicant to see beyond his own nose.

[XBob]

162 - still no comment
To: nmh
91 - "I've moved on from technology. I'm doing something else that fits me. The bigger question is what should YOU do? I can't tell YOU what to do. YOU need to determine that. Meantime, I'm doing just fine $$$."

Ah - you took one of those infomercial courses and are now reposessing bankrupt properties from people whose jobs have been exported.

I knew it - it fits your personality, and your attitude and your training.

[DannyTN]

You make a great deal of sense, but our government seems determined to destroy us and will not go along with any of it.

I don't know that they are totally set in their ways. This is a course change. Adherence to strict free trade made sense, as long as we couldn't see the downside. I think the downside is becoming apparent and more free traders are reconsidering the position. It's just government doesn't do anything fast. Much less change course.

[nmh]

162 - still no comment

Not worth my time. Neither is this but it was too funny to pass up.

To: nmh
91 - "I've moved on from technology. I'm doing something else that fits me. The bigger question is what should YOU do? I can't tell YOU what to do. YOU need to determine that. Meantime, I'm doing just fine $$$."

Ah - you took one of those infomercial courses and are now reposessing bankrupt properties from people whose jobs have been exported.

Nope! Maybe you ought to try your hand at that. It would suit your mentality. I don't object to those taking over property where people have lived beyond their means and gone bankrupt. Makes no difference to me how they became unemployed. Would you prefer the houses be made into a shrine or something?

I knew it - it fits your personality, and your attitude and your training.

You know nothing about me but have all the answers! LOL. If you lose your job consider being a stand-up comic. You'd be a natural.

[nmh]

385 - You know, I have been waiting for your resume for that $100 per month job I have for you. However, it is becoming readily apparent that you are underqualified. I do have another for $100, per year, which you may fill, no thinking required, and supply your own gloves, but please send resume first, as I am again not sure you are qualified for that job, as it requires the applicant to see beyond his own nose.

I already have a job and doing quite well. Maybe you need to enroll in a reading and comprension course since what I clearly write escapes you. I think the job you described fits you to a "t". Go for you!

[hedgetrimmer]

Oh nmh,

I just found this on the thomas website, a bill to enforce a WTO dispute settlement body decision. Who says the WTO doesn't have any effect on us or our laws?

108th CONGRESS

1st Session

S. 1952


4) On January 28, 2000, a panel of the World Trade Organization determined that Mexico's antidumping order on high fructose corn syrup imported from the United States violated Mexico's commitments under the Uruguay Round Agreements.

(5) On February 24, 2000, the Dispute Settlement Body adopted the report of the panel.

(6) On April 10, 2000, the United States and Mexico agreed to a September 22, 2000, deadline for Mexico to come into compliance with the panel report as adopted by the Dispute Settlement Body.

(7) On September 20, 2000, just 2 days prior to the date Mexico had agreed to come into compliance with the panel report, Mexico issued a revised antidumping threat determination in an obvious attempt to evade its commitment to come into compliance with the panel report adopted by the Dispute Settlement Body.

(8) On June 22, 2001, a panel, convened pursuant to Article 21.5 of the Dispute Settlement Understanding, found that Mexico's revised antidumping threat determination failed to bring Mexico into compliance with its commitments under the World Trade Organization.

(9) On October 22, 2001, the Appellate Body affirmed the ruling of the Article 21.5 panel and recommended that Mexico come into compliance with its obligations under the World Trade Organization.

(10) On November 21, 2001, the Dispute Settlement Body adopted the Appellate Body ruling that affirmed the findings of the Article 21.5 panel.

(11) On January 1, 2002, in a transparent attempt to evade the determinations of the Dispute Settlement Body regarding Mexico's antidumping order on high fructose corn syrup, and in an affront to the rules-based system of the World Trade Organization, Mexico imposed a de facto discriminatory 20 percent tax on soft drinks containing high fructose corn syrup, the intent and effect of which is to continue Mexico's antidumping order on United States high fructose corn syrup by other means by restricting access to the Mexican market.

***

Looks like the WTO has a heavy heavy hand in the legislation our so called representatives produce.

[hedgetrimmer]

the rights of the United States under the Uruguay Round Agreements are being denied by Mexico

Oh, International bodies have no influence over us and we do not have to do what they say? Yet Congress is defining OUR rights by the Urugay Round, not the US Constitution?????? See senate bill S. 1952

[superloser]

Sorry, you're still inventing an argument where none exists. Nowhere have I called for a Government program. I don't know where you get the delusion but its not in the posts :-)

I agree with you 100% on your stand on immigration, BTW.

However, for 'free trade' - the hidden costs more than outweigh any benefits given today's political climate, which must be examined in detail to predict an outcome.

I've got a small list of "outcomes" of this policy. Free Traders must be willing to accept them to continue the policy. See post #366.

[RinaseaofDs]

Yeah, sorry.

What he said.

Sick, no?

[nmh]

This reply belongs to someone else:

the rights of the United States under the Uruguay Round Agreements are being denied by Mexico

You may want to direct your reply (below) to who ever that person is.

Oh, International bodies have no influence over us and we do not have to do what they say? Yet Congress is defining OUR rights by the Urugay Round, not the US Constitution?????? See senate bill S. 1952

[nmh]

This reply belongs to someone else:

the rights of the United States under the Uruguay Round Agreements are being denied by Mexico

You may want to direct your reply (below) to who ever that person is.

Oh, International bodies have no influence over us and we do not have to do what they say? Yet Congress is defining OUR rights by the Urugay Round, not the US Constitution?????? See senate bill S. 1952

[nmh]

I just found this on the thomas website, a bill to enforce a WTO dispute settlement body decision. Who says the WTO doesn't have any effect on us or our laws?


You'll find oodles and oodles of bills there. It didn't pass. Even if another rears its ugly head it doesn't matter. What matters is what becomes law or policy.

[nmh]

Sorry, you're still inventing an argument where none exists. Nowhere have I called for a Government program. I don't know where you get the delusion but its not in the posts :-)

Here I thought you were the tariff pusher ... oh well ...

I agree with you 100% on your stand on immigration, BTW.

I believe we need a moratorium and during that time raise the bar on standards. Family ties shouldn't be the end all criteria. They need to have something to offer.

However, for 'free trade' - the hidden costs more than outweigh any benefits given today's political climate, which must be examined in detail to predict an outcome.

I obviously don't agree. "Free trade" is precisely what we need in order to remain competitive and prosperous. Why are you so down on progress and raising the bar for folks to being more prosperous?

I've got a small list of "outcomes" of this policy. Free Traders must be willing to accept them to continue the policy. See post #366.

Your "outcomes" are based on personal opinion, not facts.

Okay, I have to ask ... any particular reason why you chose "superloser" as a moniker?

[hedgetrimmer]

it doesn't matter

It doesn't matter if we have lawmakers introducing laws based on intnernational socialist policy? Those so called "lawmakers" have no place in a free society and should have never been elected.

You need to look carefully at the kinds of bills proposed in Congress. It will tell you a great deal about the kind of people that populate our Congress and whether or not they should even be there.