Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: raybbr
BTW you have not answered my question.

Ok, I'll answer the question. If I remember, you wanted to know where we would be if we had a $500 surplus instead of a $500 billion deficit. If we had a $500 billion deficit, it would account for about 6 percent of our $8 trillion economy, so I guess we'd be 12 percent better off in the short term. Over the long run we'd lose huge amounts of foreign capital, the benefits of foreign competition, higher prices on both domestic and foreign goods, trade reciprocity as other countries impose tariffs on us, and a monetary crisis as confidence in the dollar erodes. In short, we'd be in the boat Japan is in now.

I totally disagree on both points...

They weren't points, they were facts. You can disagree with facts if you like, I suppose. But that's where democracy gets us in trouble as people vote their instincts and personal interests rather than objectively examining the ramifications of their actions.

I work for a large corporation and as a blue collar worker I don't see any of the profit put into wages for us.

You chose your job. You can choose not to work in that job. Your pay and your circumstances are strictly defined by the demand/supply equilibrium of whatever it is you do. That is an irreversible fact of life for all of us. If the value is not high enough for you, you should change your circumstances. Become self-employed. Work for a better firm. If these corporations are so inefficient then you should be able to make a fortune by competing with them.

By asking me to support trade barriers you are asking me to endure higher prices and economic disaster so that you can make more than you are worth at a job you don't seem to like much, anyway.

No thank you.

170 posted on 08/02/2003 6:43:08 AM PDT by massadvj
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 163 | View Replies ]


To: massadvj
Your pay and your circumstances are strictly defined by the demand/supply equilibrium of whatever it is you do.

Yes, but now we have a flood of work done cheaply by marxist states. No matter how good you are, you're nothing compared to millions of people working for the state.

We're brought up to believe that if you play by the rules, keep your nose clean, get an education and make something of your life things will turn out alright for you. Granted some people make bad choices (ie a PhD in underwater basket weaving isn't a good career choice) but right now we're under intense subsidized pressure. Is that fair?

Now ask yourself: what happens when we have millions of people unemployed due to this. Do you think they're all going to pick themselves up by the bootstraps and look for the Next Big Thing that's not going to be offshored? Sure some will. The vast majority will be left scrunging around for that midnight stock boy position at the local Safeway.

Now ask: what are they going to do when their standard of living falls? Keep those same people in power that they think (rightly or wrongly) is to blame? No, they're going to vote in the next FDR. Which is what none of us on FR want.

So in short: competition is good. Churn in the workforce is good. Too much of both and we're headed down to socialism voted in by the un- or under- employed.
171 posted on 08/02/2003 6:50:00 AM PDT by lelio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 170 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson