I love posting this one, it gives you guys fits.
Posted on 03/20/2008 2:56:09 AM PDT by Fennie
The Bush administration forecasts a $410 billion federal budget deficit for this year, an indication that, as the US saving rate is approximately zero, the US is not only dependent on foreigners to finance its wars but also dependent on foreigners to finance part of the US government's domestic expenditures. Foreign borrowing is paying US government salaries--perhaps that of the president himself--or funding the expenditures of the various cabinet departments. Financially, the US is not an independent country.
A troubled currency and financial system and large budget and trade deficits do not present an attractive face to creditors. Yet Washington in its hubris seems to believe that the US can forever rely on the Chinese, Japanese and Saudis to finance America's life beyond its means. Imagine the shock when the day arrives that a US Treasury auction of new debt instruments is not fully subsribed...
I appreciate the feedback - I hadn’t found that information - that US imports from Mexico will be inspected in Mexico by US Customs - can you let me know where I can read more about that? Thanks in advance.
“The way free trade works is everyone gets a better chance to sell their labor on the world market. Overpriced labor, like American union labor, doesn’t do as well. But poor people do better. The more poor they are, the better they do in terms of standards of living. As a direct result of worldwide free trade, the number of people in abject poverty has dropped from 40% in 1981 to 20% today. Protectionism in any form does worse, whether countries denying their people a choice of worldwide products, or American labor protecting their overpaid positions.”
What a bunch of nonsense you’ve dribbled all over this thread. So, you think the purpose of the US economy is to improve the standard of living of the world’s poor while decreasing the standard of living of American workers?
Protectionism absolutely works to build a nation’s econony. It worked for the US for two hundred years. It’s the Asian model of growth as Japan, South Korea and now China have been demonstrating for about sixty years.
And, we do not have free trade. just a bunch of agreements written by transnational corporations that protect certain US industries while exposing others to the world’s cheapest labor and lowest environment and work standards.
“Overpriced American labor”?? Practically every job in the US is overpriced compared to the world average. Do you have a plan to bring other overpriced US workers into line with the world averages, such as government workers, school teachers, doctors and nurses, and most every worker in the US who is not a private entrepreneur.
What plans do you have to remove the ‘protectionism’ from all those jobs, since that seems to be the only value you recognize as worthwhile?
bump
The purpose of the American economy is what Americans decide it is. If they think the purpose is buying cheap disposable imports (which I think is stupid), then that's what it is.
Practically every job in the US is overpriced compared to the world average. Do you have a plan to bring other overpriced US workers into line with the world averages, such as government workers, school teachers, doctors and nurses, and most every worker in the US who is not a private entrepreneur.
Getting rid of government bureaucracy and regulations would take care of both problems, the overpricing of protected classes of workers and underpricing of entrepreneurs. It would free up our economy to compete and grow. An economy is not a zero sum pie to be divided among workers unless we stifle trade.
I'd like to see you provide an example of an economy without them.
The last time I checked the U.S. was trying to negotiate something to replace the 1992 Agreement. I don't know if those negotiations are on hold, or if all the other disputes have been rolled into the U.S. case against Airbus.
I love posting this one, it gives you guys fits.
Yet another one of Jimmuh Carter's "legacies", thanks to the creation of the Department of (mis)Education.....
It is when these money grubbin thieves suck the juice of life outta their company, country and workers for their own personal gain.
Whatever happened to “what's good for America” Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country?
That's what is wrong with our citizens today. Everyone worships the alimighty dollar rather than what's good for the country.
That dog's gonna come bite us big time.
Oh my gosh....out comes the graphic.
Wow! I’m impressed. You sure you ain’t Ross Perot?
They are definitely needed, but they are ancillary to the production of goods, and are the equivalent to overhead.
Shh.. Some will castigate you for that statement.
But you are right. When a many puts only his own gain first, hell usually follows. Funny, how few really remember that when the time comes to make decisions.
What you say is theory is true, but when put into the perspective of the impoverished worker it means very little.
Moving from very poor to just poor equals poor.
Besides, in the case of Mexico, corporations moved south of the border in droves during NAFTA’s infancy. The impoverished Mexican worker lived within a stones throw of the plants in which they were employed, usually in shanties made of card board and corigated metal.
Now, 2008 a large number of these corporations have moved their business from Mexico....because the labor cost increased. Nafta was sold in part by the promise of an increase in the Mexican worker standard of living.
Does the average Mexican worker enjoy a better standard of living now in 2008 due to Nafta? Certainly not.
They have lost manufacturing positions to China, Eastern block and so forth.
Nafta, was sold in part by false promises to increase the standard of living for impoverished workers....it didn't happen.
What did happen was thousand of American workers lost their jobs (with the promise of retraining funds to help them), and the corporations increase their bottom line using dirt cheap labor.
True, the Mexican workers that were hired on made more money than they were accustomed....but to our standards, this was certainly slave wages.
The corporations paid paltry wages, little to no benefits, skirted environmental regulation (polluted the hell out of the Rio Grande basin), circumvented worker safety regulation and American taxation.
Who won? The corporate bottom line.
It's all about greed, plain and simple.
The spork analogy was meant to be a superficial, somewhat comical take on corporate cutbacks, but the real story lies with workers around the world working for little, putting exhausting amount of time and polluting their land, air and waterways beyond any measure of reason.
HYPER-GLOBALISM
An economy could not run without them of course. However any profession has it's bad apples and excesses. Lawyers for instance are one reason why business are leaving the US in droves to safer pastures. When you buy a product today and the 30 page owners manual is 25 pages related to safety hints and practices and the item is plastered in a multitude of safety decals something smells in Denmark.
Did your profs tell you in law school the negative aspects of lawyers in relation to the economy?
“The purpose of the American economy is what Americans decide it is. If they think the purpose is buying cheap disposable imports (which I think is stupid), then that’s what it is.”
Are you really so naive, or just a mouthpiece for transnational corporate interests? NAFTA was passed while about 2/3 of American citizens opposed it. Now about that many of Republicans question whether free trade is a net benefit to the US. Many agreements have been entered knowing they would shift much production to cheap labor nations. Consumers have no choice but to buy “cheap disposables” in many product categories. Product availability (or lack) that results from agreements the American people opposed is NOT A CHOICE made by the consumers.
“Getting rid of government bureaucracy and regulations would take care of both problems, the overpricing of protected classes of workers and underpricing of entrepreneurs. It would free up our economy to compete and grow. An economy is not a zero sum pie to be divided among workers unless we stifle trade.”
You ignored the real question. The answer is, to have real free markets, you must have the free movement of labor, as well as the free movement of capital and goods.
So, again, how do you propose to bring down all those overpriced American workers whose jobs aren’t so easily moved to the cheap labor nations as manufacturing jobs?
There are real solutions to this problem which seems to trouble you - all those overpriced American workers (and, the entrepreneurs are also way overpriced per world standards).
Give us some real answers, not more theoretical gibberish.
Wrong, rose steadily except for our downturn in 2000-2003
Wrong. This lie that Americans want cheaper goods was fomented by corporate America.
Sure, you have bozo's out their that look at the cheap price. Walking around their local wal-mart store like mind numb robots, but these are the short sighted people in which you refer.
In the end, that consumer usually winds up buying substandard quality multiple times. The savings becomes a wash when compared to superior American made products that outlast cheaper counterfeits.
>>Are you really so naive, or just a mouthpiece for transnational corporate interests?”
Not naive at all. I believe in America, I believe we can do it better. I believe corporate America should display some level of loyalty to workers that have given their lives to help grow these corps.
Sorry if that upsets your lil globalist apple cart, but workers provide a service, a business within a business if you will.
>>Give us some real answers, not more theoretical gibberish.”
Theoretical gibberish maybe to you, but to middle class America, corporate America is killing this country in the name of globalism and profit.
There is NO theoretical gibberish in pointing out that global corporations circumvent worker safety and environmental safeguards.
There is NO theoretical gibberish in pointing out that a man deserves a fair wage for day of labor.
You may think it gibberish, but millions of Americans who watched their standard of living erode when their positions were eliminated and given to a fella in China making a tenth of their wage with no benefits for their future.
The real answer....America first. Rebuild our manufacturing infrastructure and turn this economic disaster around.
Sure, these bone-headed bureaucrats have over taxed and over burdened business in this country, this needs to be fixed to become competitive again.
But these “overpaid American workers” as you put it, are only trying to provide for their families...sure theirs exceptions and abuses.
We have become a debtor nation. Savings and investment are at an all time low. This is in part to the shrinking pool of good blue collar manufacturing positions which enable families to work, save and PAY THEIR TAXES.
If you are against this, then I'd have to label you....Un-American.
Corporate elites have reaped huge personal benefit off the backs of the worker. In many cases, executive salaries, benefits and personal perks are hundreds of times that of the worker.
It's not right, it is shameful, and it is greed.
It’s mostly a waste of time to get into a debate with someone who has no understanding of statistics, and no understanding of the US economy, such as you. You, or someone, have taken three or four elements of our economy and attempted (without success) to show that they have some profound impact on the total US economy, expressed as GDP per capita.
There are dozens, or hundreds, or thousands and other factors which impact our GDP that could also be stuck on a graph. Here, put these on there, also:
Spending on Rural electrification, spending on WWII, the introduction of Social Security, the WWII GI Bill, the invention of television, the invention of the transistor, average rainfall, and many, many more.
That graph you posted proves nothing. You can’t just pick out three elements from many and pretend that those three elements alone are the reason for changes in the total economy, or GDP per capita.
And, once again, we see the obscure Smoot-Hawley act given as the primary reason for the Great Depression and who knows what else. I studied economics before NAFTA, and never heard of S-H until the NAFTA debate, when it was drug out of obscurity and presented as the cause of all negative events since 1930.
The real cause of the Great Depression was that, after the Wall Street collapse and the start of bank failures, the Federal Reserve SHRUNK THE MONEY SUPPLY BY 26%, or more”:
http://www.hoover.org/publications/policyreview/3476271.html
The seventh paragraph of the article:
“The Federal Reserve is the most powerful institution of a new order that believed in the efficacy of government and its ability to do good. The same Federal Reserve caused the Great Depression when its wise men made a series of cumulative mistakes that contracted the money supply by one-third and wiped out purchasing power in an unprecedented fashion.”
Near the end of the article:
“The great depression and its offspring, the New Deal, could both have been avoided if the Federal Reserve had performed the task assigned to it. All the Federal Reserve had to do to avoid the Depression and the subversion of the American constitutional order was to purchase $1 billion in government securities during the 10-month period from December 1929 to October 1930. The result would have been an increase, instead of decrease, in high-powered money, and the banking crisis that began in the autumn of 1930 would not have occurred.”
Today, with the fears of recession or worse, the Fed is flooding the country with money to try stimulate the economy. But in 1929 and 1930 they did the opposite, and, more than anything else, caused the prolonged depression which was finally broken by gearing up the economy for WWII.
People who keep throwing this Smoot-Hawley nonsense around really need to do some reading about the causes of the Great Depression. That Hoover Institution article is a good start.
And, again, your graph proves nothing, shows nothing, illustrates nothing. You cannot take three of numerous factors that influence an economy and pretend they are the cause of changes in the total economy.
Actually, you probably can look at 1940 on your graph and assume that our gearing up for WWII was the main factor in that upturn.
Some of my older relatives simple description of the Great Depression got much closer to the cause than all this S-H nonsense. They said: “Nobody had any money.”
And that was the result of the Fed’s misguided actions.
The latest figures I could find. From Calpacifico. Wages have not steadily risen in Mexico since the inception of NAFTA. In fact, Mexicans moving to the US has been the safety valve that keeps the Mexican economy stable. In 2005, Mexicans in the United States remitted some $20 billion home, about 3 percent of Mexico's national income. Remittances now exceed tourism, oil and the maquiladoras as the country's top single source of foreign exchange. Further, In the past 10 years, Mexico's working age population increased by a little over 1 million per year, but the number of jobs expanded by only half as much. The annual exodus of 500,000 to 1 million Mexicans keeps unemployment to at least manageable levels.
"Trade, not Aid" - ha ha ha ha
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.