Posted on 03/21/2004 10:26:31 AM PST by Steve Eisenberg
When a presidential election year coincides with an uncertain economy, campaigning politicians invariably invoke an international economic issue as a dire threat to the well-being of Americans. Speechwriters denounce the chosen scapegoat, the media provides blanket coverage of the alleged threat, and legislators scurry to introduce supposed remedies.
The cause of this year's commotion is offshore outsourcing -- the alleged migration of American jobs overseas. The depth of alarm was strikingly illustrated by the firestorm of reaction to recent testimony by N. Gregory Mankiw, the head of President George W. Bush's Council of Economic Advisers. No economist really disputed Mankiw's observation that "outsourcing is just a new way of doing international trade," which makes it "a good thing." But in the political arena, Mankiw's comments sparked a furor on both sides of the aisle. Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry accused the Bush administration of wanting "to export more of our jobs overseas," and Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle quipped, "If this is the administration's position, I think they owe an apology to every worker in America." Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert, meanwhile, warned that "outsourcing can be a problem for American workers and the American economy."
Critics charge that the information revolution (especially the Internet) has accelerated the decimation of U.S. manufacturing and facilitated the outsourcing of service-sector jobs once considered safe, from backroom call centers to high-level software programming. (This concern feeds into the suspicion that U.S. corporations are exploiting globalization to fatten profits at the expense of workers.) They are right that offshore outsourcing deserves attention and that some measures to assist affected workers are called for. But if their exaggerated alarmism succeeds in provoking protectionist responses from lawmakers, it will do far more harm than good, to the U.S. economy and to American workers.
(Excerpt) Read more at foreignaffairs.org ...
Such as mercantilism? Socialism? Government control of production and trade? I'll certainly believe your opinion on this matter, as you are an expert on obsolete and discredited ideas...
But I suppose you view Mr. Roberts as a "goofball" too. I wonder how your background in economics compares with his? That would, I think, make amusing reading. Wouldn't it?
Do read the link I gave you for Paul Craig Roberts. You might find it enlightening.
So now you want our government to behave like the Chinese government...you are a communist.
Protectionists suggest that because other governments restrict imports, the U.S. government should do the same. Said another way that means the U.S. government should limit the liberty of Americans because other governments limit the freedom of their citizens.
(Chuckle). Really? I see. It turns out that I really don't much care for yard work. It's hot around here, and I see no reason to sweat. And I really hate to overpay for yardwork. So, why can't I just buy a slave or two? They are available, you know. So I buy a couple slaves, put them to work, flog them if they don't work hard or fast enough, and life is good.
This is a fine example of a free transaction between free people. The slaves don't matter. So, how do we implement the enabling legislation so I can get those slaves?
(/amused sarcasm)
Another fine example of your absolute lack of logic...calling slaves "free people".
And what, pray tell, is the practical difference between slavery and Chinese prison labor? Or, for that matter, eighty cents per day laborers?
The free traitors will reduce the workers of America to a status less than that of a slave. How less? Because the owner of a slave cares about the death of his property - at 80 cents per day, the laborer is quite disposable.
What kind of car do you drive?
A Cadillac Sedan de Ville - which was 93% made in America. It was the highest percentage I could find at the time. I regret that it wasn't 100%.
I have never purchased or owned a foreign car. I intend never to do so.
And, Poobah, I am curious - what kind of car do YOU drive?
Good on you.
But, of course, you now demand that America do it YOUR way, at gunpoint.
And, Poobah, I am curious - what kind of car do YOU drive?
A Ford Focus ZX3. You see, unlike you, I can't afford an overpriced piece of crap like a Cadillac Sedan de Ville.
A simple tariff - which was the historic US norm - hardly qualifies as putting a gun to anyone's head.
And, Poobah, I am curious - what kind of car do YOU drive?
A Ford Focus ZX3. You see, unlike you, I can't afford an overpriced piece of crap like a Cadillac Sedan de Ville.
Now, Poohbah. My car isn't a piece of crap - it works very nicely, thank you. You realize that your car is produced in Mexico - at least you're helping our neighbors in Mexico instead of more remote locales. But I hope that next time you buy, you'll consider trying to get an American produced car.
You're demanding that I fork over more money, on pain of government imprisonment, and lower my standard of living, just to benefit your preferred special interest group.
Now, Poohbah. My car isn't a piece of crap - it works very nicely, thank you.
At best, it works no better than mine, and in my experience (two neighbors and my mother own Sedan de Villes), it usually spends about one day a month in the shop. And you pay a great deal more money at initial acquisition just enjoy the privilege of subsidizing your local auto mechanic.
You realize that your car is produced in Mexico - at least you're helping our neighbors in Mexico instead of more remote locales. But I hope that next time you buy, you'll consider trying to get an American produced car.
If you're paying for the purchase cost differential, and the increased operations and maintenance costs, absolutely.
As long as I'm spending my money, I will buy the car that gives the best value. If that's an American car, great. Right now, it isn't. Until the American auto worker understands that "Made in the USA" acts as a warning label these days, and not as a symbol of pride, I'm not buying his product. I don't have money to burn.
|
Keep drinking the Kool-Aid, bubba. They charge too much and deliver too little.
But have you ever thought that if we protected American workers, YOU might have more money and more income?
Actually, I wouldn't, after the cost-push inflation got finished with my money, and the overall lowering of quality that comes when you shield people from competition.
But I think America is better off with a strong middle class. And free trade destroys that middle class.
There's one guy I can think of who would agree with you. His name was Karl Marx.
And the only nation that practices your notions re: trade with perfect fidelity is that economic superpower of the Pacific Rim...
...North Korea.
If you're paying for the purchase cost differential, and the increased operations and maintenance costs, absolutely.
(Chuckle) Now you want me to pay a special tariff just to benefit a special interest group of one? I think not.
You demand that I spend my money in a way that pleases you. Either ante up the additional cost of doing business in a way that keeps you happy, or go have a morally improper and anatomically impossible relationship with yourself. I don't care which one you opt for.
You get what you pay for from me. Since you're paying nothing, you get nothing.
ROTFLMAO!!! Marvelous! No, sir, you are incorrect. Mr. Karl Marx, my dear Poohbah - is in complete agreement with YOU! He was very much in favor of free trade!
You think not? Perhaps you would like to read his thoughts on free trade? Just for you, I have provided a very special link!
If you want on or off my offshoring ping list, please FReepmail me!
2000 Dodge Caravan. Assembled in Canada. Engine is the made in Mexico base model. Executive management, mostly German, I suppose. Most of the parts, American, but even American parts have little bits and pieces on them coming from dozens of additional countries. Most of the engineering, American. Repairs, least of any car we've had, and we're up to 80,000 miles.
Any country that tries to regulate a stop to this is going to wind up as poor as, well, India, which is only in the early stages of recovery from decades of disasterous protectionism.
That's the current conventional wisdom. But India has high trade barriers presently - and high growth as well. This represents a logical inconsistency - and, I think, illustrates a fallacy in the fundamental theory of free trade.
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.