Posted on 03/09/2006 10:42:42 AM PST by navysealdad
Dubai Ports Worls to divest itself of all American interests
So you're going to use tariffs to raise the costs of Chinese goods so that they cost as much as American goods. What are you going to about the very significant amount of inflation that would create?
What are you going to do when foreign countries retaliate?
Since we have a large trade deficit, a trade war can be though of as hurting them more than us to some extent, however the problem is that it's going to take a lot more money to produce a lot of those things here.
To produce them we're going to need import a lot of raw materials. We're going to need to import a LOT more oil. We're going to need to produce a lot more energy. That's not necessarily bad if it helps us grow our economy, but we're going to need to trade with other countries to get those things, and our increased demand is going to drive up prices.
We had amazing growth during the industrial revolution because we had vast natural resources that we exploited. We got used to having a lot of stuff. We now buy, use and waste more stuff than any other country in the world. To keep ourselves living in this lifestyle, we're going to have to import a lot of materials. The other option is we're going to have to learn to do without a lot of junk.
High taxes are definitely a problem, but even moves to high-efficiency manfacturing in many areas would not be enough due to the insurmountable wage/regulation/currency-value differences between the US and China. Those cost differences are what can, and should be, wiped out through the use of tariffs.
You can use tariffs to deal with small differences, not with large ones. If you use large tariffs, you're basically cutting yourselves off from the rest of the world. Eventually the rest of the world that takes advantage of the benefits of trade will pass you by.
Tariffs are also good to address short term problems. For example if a hurricane decimates a particular industry domestically, so we use tariffs to protect the industry while it rebuilds so that rebuilding is a sound investment.
And what percentage of those Honda vehicles are of foreign content?
Honda uses a higher percentage of American made parts in their car than most American car companies. If you don't believe me, just look at the stickers at the dealers. They are required to put the percentage of US parts right on the sticker.
The problem is we're barely being protectionist at all. Just look at the increasing dependence upon foreign parts for our military. If ANYPLACE we should have an absolute minimal dependence upon foreign imports it should be for the military. But within MRBM/cruise-missile range of China is enough sources that could bring practically all of our precision-guided weapons, aircraft, armored vehicle and ship combat systems manufacture to a grinding halt in 90 days or less.
I work in the military avionics industry. We export far, far more military hardware than we import.
We aren't building a lot of heavy armored vehicles or ships right now, at least not compared to the past. However, it's not because we're importing them from elsewhere. Of what we are building, a lot of it's being built for export.
Ah, but there's the problem. We're so fixated on small 3rd world nations with 4th rate militaries we're not even seeing the monster that we're growing with our own trade policies.
China isn't just growing because of our trade policies. They are growing because they are making huge investments in their future. They are building the infrastructure, and thinking long term while doing it. They are encouraging foreign investment for the purpose of long term growth. They have embraced a lot of free market attitudes while still managing to maintain tight control over their people.
It's questionable how long they can continue to embrace free market principles while still maintaining their tight control over their own people. However, in currently, one thing is obvious. The are catching us in technology. They are investing in infrastructure. They have lots of resources and an incredible number of people.
If we adopt protectionist tariffs, we can shrink their markets and slow their growth, but we hurt ourselves at the same time, so it's not obvious if there is really a net benefit to that approach, and it only delays things.
In the end, we need to learn to compete with a economic rival that's not a pitiful as the EU currently is. We are becoming more and more like the EU. Protectionist policies, too many worker "protections", to high of taxes, too much government interference.
The Chinese may lose control over their people as their free market policies grow a powerful and active middle class. Eventually their people are going to demand a higher standard of living. However, by then they will have built up an infrastructure that will rival or surpass or own. They will have the military might to truly be a super power militarily as well as economically.
Right now we face two big threats. We have the Islamic radicals which would likely lead us to a new dark age in their efforts to bend the world to their will. The second threat we face is China dominating us economically and militarily.
Tariffs aren't going to stop the Chinese. They are doing too many things right. They are doing the right things to invest long term. The only way to compete with the Chinese is to improve productivity, to invest in our future, and to continue to innovate.
How about Iran? Seriously. Now, consider which steps would be needed to be able to do that. THIS is how a real great power thinks.
Finally, real facts from someone who has done the real work! Thank you for your service and thank you for your post! :-)
I'm not a supporter of using the Suez for war ships. I'd rather see sufficient assets both east and west coast to prevent it. Actually I think we need a carrier capable ship builder on the west coast. We went from having four such yards to one nationwide. Granted NNSBDD has built the majority of them. BTW when Iran took the hostages in 79 we didn't even use the ditch then and at least one Carrier the JFK was sent from the east coast.
But that being said we started using it again for that purpose in 1981. The USS AMERICA CV-66 was the first carrier to transit the canal since the 1960's
Seriously. Now, consider which steps would be needed to be able to do that.
Well, we would have to invade and conquer Iran, while simultaneously neutralizing Russia (which would, under the terms of the 1922 Iranian-Soviet Treaty of Friendship, have the right to enter Iranian territory "in defense of Iran," which would, in this case, translate into a legal right to grab the Iranian oilfields.
We would have to deal with a very hostile populace (they have no real love of the mullahs, but they would most likely hate the idea of being occupied by infidel Auslander even more) across a rather large country.
To deal with both threats will require a significantly larger Army.
So when would you enlist? Would you do so right now as a matter of patriotic fervor? Or do you view yourself as being "too valuable" to put on a helmet and shoulder a rifle?
Generally, I've never seen the ones most loudly gung-ho for a war actually enlisting for same--at best, they accept a draft call-up instead of bugging out for Canada or proclaiming that they're gay.
I remember the Cold War and what security was :>} Too bad ones like Rickover are no longer with us to speak their minds.
RE: "So when would you enlist? Would you do so right now as a matter of patriotic fervor? "
If they would have taken me, I would have been in back on 9/12/01. Unfortunately, I'm too old.
Amazing how a lot of folks suddenly get a lot more willing to go to war when there's zero chance of their precious bodies getting perforated.
War or Peace servicemen die. It happens in peace time operations also thats just the risk you take when you sign the paper and raise your right hand.
You know, sailors who served in peacetime, and a good chunk of that in a shipyard, away from the risks of being at sea, should really refrain from lecturing those of us who spent a year in Vietnam about the risks of being in the service. I was fortunate enough to come home unscathed, but I also had several extremely close calls. A lot of folks I know got wounded. A few of my friends came home in metal boxes.
It's one thing to support a robust foreign policy, or to give careful consideration to the consequences of going to war, as I believe Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and others have done.
It's another thing entirely to advocate a policy that would put us as odd-man out in a three-sided war with Iran and Russia--but only after it's "safe" to do so.
3 were from United Arab Emirates
http://www.suntimes.com/special_sections/sept11/attacks/thehijackers.html
Then again Tim McVeigh was from the US.
exactly!
you favor DUBAI over ISRAEL????? Incredible!
OK I also spent two six month deployments to the MED, a deployment to South America, and many more days as well around GITMO doing work ups. I did about a month of one yard period when I got to the ship, another 3 month yard time when I came back from the MED first time, and my final year after I came back from the MED the second time was for overhaul. So as in a previous yard period I volunteered for the Ships Fire Department so don't tell me about close calls. I've been in quite a few. If you know Navy terms which I doubt I was 1 on 1 in the Fire dept. That's as close as you can get. Other than yard time I was at sea 10 out of 12 months on the average. I went through the year long overhaul because when it happened I was just under a year left on my enlistment and the Navy would not have reassigned me because of that. Believe me there was risk there as well. In the yards you really have to be on your toes.
You know who ran the morge on my ship? My shop did. The bodies went to the aft walk in food cooler until flown off where one of us stood watch 24/7 on the cooler till they were flown off. They are just as dead as those who fought in war and they are just as deserving of respect for serving our country. I know of very few Navy snipes especially in the Boiler Tech and Machinist Mate ratings who didn't have close calls as that and the flight deck is the two most dangerous places to work on a ship. In four years we lost around roughly 20 people. Some were pilots some were not. In the 70's when a carrier deployed for 6 months it was assumed about 12 would die even in peace time operations. I about bought the farm myself twice just working with utility boats.
It's one thing to support a robust foreign policy, or to give careful consideration to the consequences of going to war, as I believe Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and others have done.
I joined up while Rummy was Sec of Defense the first time under Ford and he left things in a sorry mess most people blame Carter for. Don't get me wrong Carter was not a good POTUS either by any means but Ford/Rummy was every bit as responsible for that mess as Carter. Things were already screwed up enough when Carter was sworn in. Actually Carter started some policy changes late in his term that were positive not many mind you but some. Had I wanted out during my first year or so all I would have had to have done was went AWOL for 31 days and turned myself in for a General Discharge. Carter stopped that. I didn't leave & I stuck it out and an Army NG enlistment as well.
I was on active duty when the first Iranian crisis happened. That's how I knew which east coast carrier was pulled out of rotation to respond. We were placed on Closed Ship Alert for deployment and stood down only when they ordered the KENNEDY to join the three carriers already near or on station the day it happened. As for Cheney? He destroyed the Navy's most successful fighter plane program. Wanna talk some more?
There was only one arab paper that stood up for the UAE and that was a small one out of Jordan. Ponder that fact for a moment. However who stood up for the UAE. A major Israeli business interest involved in shipping. Dont think that he didnt talk to the Israeli govt before doing so either. Think outside the MSM headlines and little special interest groups that squak the sky is falling. Some of the biggest Jewish supporters for the State of Israel were for this. I am huge supporter of Israel for the record. Again when I hear Israel Govt officials are people that matter start complaining I will listen. However it seems quite the opposite here.
Proving the "protectionist isolationsts" were right not to trust them because the second something doesn't go their way they retaliate.
Now, watch out chicoms.
Among those who have the ability to think critically, that's instantly recognizable as a straw man argument, based on a false premise that anyone is against the port deal is therefore anti-Bush.
I'm not anti-Bush, but I fervently oppose the deal and applaud its apparent death.
I'm curious: You obviously think Bush was right on the port deal. Are there any major issues on which you consider Bush wrong?
MM
Yes campaign finance reform was a biggie that Bush was wrong on.
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.