Posted on 05/12/2005 8:08:27 AM PDT by TXBSAFH
Yeah, I was being sarcastic...
HEY! You are supposed to use the /sarcasm rule! lol
Let me point out a few FACTS you didn't get in your very limited MACRO economics 101.
For example, manufacturing creates about 3.5 jobs for every direct manufacturing job... That means for every 1 guy in the plant turning screws, 3.5 additional jobs are created to support that job... supppliers, service, etc... a SERVICE industry job generates just 1.5 or so Jobs per employee... That means that new call center that's replacing your plant, is only goint to have 1.5 additional job creations per job... Or in essence, just to keep current employment levels, when a manufacturing job is eliminated it takes more than 2 service jobs to replace it.... That's not fairy tale, that's fact.
Manufacturing isn't dead in America, but it sure isn't kicking either. "Free Trade" is not smart trade, and its not conservative in the least. The idea of completely unrestrained markets is also not conservative. Capitalism has shown it is just as capable of devaluing human life as Communism when left unfettered. The triangle fire in New York, Wholescale deaths in the rail yards and mines are all testaments to "completely unfettered markets".
To believe that you as a nation are better off exporting your wealth to third world regimes that will wholesale slaughter political dissenters is a good thing is absolutely rediculous.
Trade should be bilateral agreements between nations, not unanswerable unelectable and unaccountable organizations that trump national sovereignty. If say, a China wishes to sell its goods in the US, then the US or any other Trade partner should be able to say, if you want to play with us, you have to improve your system... If you choose to DUMP steel in the US, the US should say, sorry, no... we're going to tarrif it, or not let it in at all... why should you be allowed to dump below your own cost goods here and cost our economy jobs, just so your national governmetn can subsidize its industries in times of economic hardship instead of actually dealing with the underlying issues?
Free Trade is a scam, it is not remotely based on conservative principles and end game is not a benefit. Free Trade results in REAL WAGE stagnation and collapse, as nations that do not remotely have the same safter, liberty or environmental protections... use fodder labor on barely sustinance wages to produce products for export. A nation that is stuck in the equivalent of the early 1800s (or worse is using political prisoner or child labor) to produce goods to bolster the dictatorial regimes coffers is not remotely "FREE TRADING" with the rest of the world.
Its a scam, its a lie, and its reprehensible. There is absolutely NOTHING conservative ideologically about the "free trade" myth.
As evidenced here Hong Kong.
Or here: Singapore.
How about I give you several?
Higher Debt per houshold in REAL DOLLARS.
Forclosures at all time highs.
Bankruptcies far higher as well.
Cost of higher education, has gone from 10% of a median household income per year for a year at Harvard to 400%.
Those are just a few... wake up folks... There is NOTHING conservative about Free Trade, its a scam.
Perhaps you'd like to name one and tell us exactly how our sovereignty is being superceded
You better go read the WTO and NAFTA agreements if you think Congress didn't sell our sovereignty down the drain. Just in the past few months, the US was not allowed to keep unsafe Mexican Trucking off of US Roads. And that's just the latest.. WTO has ruled against the US doing what is in US's inteerests many times... and will continue to do so... and the Politicians just go, Oh well.. WTO ruled against us.. we'll just do what they have said.
You better wake up to reality... Free Trade is a scam, its not conservative and its not remotely based on conservative ideals or principles. Its a scam.
There is NOTHING intrinsically beneficial about "untaxed" or "free trade"...the only way you wind up economically with a grand benefit from "free" trade is when both nations involved are at or near equal footing in terms of their laws, customs, social and economic structures. Which is fine and dandy for 2 nations who meet that criterial to negotiate an agreement between themselves as such. However when you have the case where nations are not on the same footing, "free trade" is not a great concept, nor an intrinsically beneficial one.
Your attempt to take "trade is good" so therefor "free trade is better" is not supported in fact or history. This is just nonsense. Sex is good.. does that make Unrestrained and unfettered sex with anyone on the street better? No, the latter leads to moral and social decay as well as health crisis'.... You cannot say because A is good... Free A is better. That doesn't even pass the most basic of logic.
Your twisting my comments again. You are being intellectually dishonest. Talk with any real estate broker or mortage broker and they will tell you where the equity levels are heading on average and that is down and getting worse over the years. Also those second mortage companies that have popped up over the last 5-8 years on every street corner must be getting business from somewhere...not to mention DiTech, E-Loan etc etc.
BTW: When are you coming to my local wal mart so I can prove to you that 65-75% of the goods on the shelves say either Made in China or Assembled in china on their containers. I need the 1000 bucks. You keep on ignoring my request.
Posted by superiorslots to Toddsterpatriot
On News/Activism 04/13/2005 11:44:13 AM PDT · 70 of 77
Quote: Check out the Fed Reserve link in post #50. Here's the money shot: Line 51 shows owners equity as a percentage of household real estate, 56.1%.
I notice your real good at posting figures that are computed by the government.
Are we talking about the same gov't as in the US?? You know the one that said the Med R/X bill was going to cost 440 billion and 10 months later said will cost 550 billion? The US agric department that can't explain where $500 million is at? The Pentagon that cannot explain where $1 Billion is at?? The gov't that cannot give a even close number as to the number of illegals?? The gov that does not know what it's true financial order is..other than bad?? The IRS laws that it's own agents are confused and have no true meaning on what is correct?? Should I continue?? Do you have enough bandwith??
Talk to a real estate broker or mortgage broker that is unbiased and they will tell you which way the equity holdings of the american citizens is going. All the ones I talked with said south...meaning less $$equity. Not to Mexico or South America. Just wanted to mak sure this did not come back twisted.
Which is fine and dandy for 2 nations who meet that criterial to negotiate an agreement between themselves as such.
Yeah, let's let the government decide what trade is best! While we're at it, why not just hand them over all of our money and let them allocate it to the best places? They know how to allocate our resources best, after all.
What you think customs and social structures have to do with economics is beyond me.
Your attempt to take "trade is good" so therefor "free trade is better" is not supported in fact or history.
I would love to see a few instances of where history supports the case that protectionism is good for the economy. I'll be waiting.
You cannot say because A is good... Free A is better.
Free trade == more trade transactions. That is the difference. If trade transactions optimize allocative efficiency of resources, then obviously more trade transactions are better. It's not that hard to understand.
That doesn't even pass the most basic of logic.
No, it's just difficult for you to make sense of things you don't understand.
Sorry, all I saw was the census report which included all homes.
You realize that cheaper foreign steel is a subsidy for our domestic steel using industries?
How does the Fed providing liquidity and a mortgage mechanism to underwrite loans destroy the free market?
You're right, the government has made errors in predicting future costs.
If you want to talk about measuring numbers, I trust the government which has access to lots of info, more than I trust some guy (you) who has a much worse track record with measuring numbers.
Talk to a real estate broker or mortgage broker that is unbiased and they will tell you which way the equity holdings of the american citizens is going.
Let's see, if equity is 56.1% and new buyers put down 20% or 10% or even 0%, average equity could fall. Is that your entire point? Wow, I'm glad you made it. And I thought you originally said that people had zero equity. Keep dreaming.
Why would we cancel them?
The zero equity line was used because some people do have zero equity...or very little. Some of the hottest loans available are interest only because people want that McMansion right now. This phenomoen is a growing trend. Just like CC debt. I was raised up not to have any. However young kids today have grown up with it and the monthly CC big payment is just looked upon in the same way as a house or car payment.
I talked with a banker friend who has been in the business for 30+ years. He said back when he started if someone came in with a second mortgage or even asked for a second mortage they were looked down upon as someone who was careless with their money or had financial troubles. It was actually sort of taboo to take out second loans back then. It was just something that was frowned upon...even by people with the mortages. They wanted to get out of debt not add more.
Today banks are pushing people into them and they are easy to get..My particular bank I can just call up and get a check later that day. Back then you had to go through an approval process which might take a week or so.
The trend over the last 4-5 years is to take out your equity and spend it on boats, vacations CC debt etc. look at all the 110 115 or 125% loans available today.
My whole original point was that real estate brokers have been telling me that they are seeing less equity correaltion vs the homes value versus the numbers years ago.
No doubt. And yet, even with all this borrowing and spending, home equity in 2000 was 57.7% and in 2004 was 56.1%. At this rate home equity will be 0% in 35 years. I won't be holding my breath.
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.