Posted on 04/18/2005 6:37:40 AM PDT by A. Pole
"At 30 cents/hour,..."
Not an accurate depiction of the labor rate in China.
"$8500.00 car only takes, ah, lemmeeesee heah, 28,333 hours--about 10 years' work--to pay off (excluding interest.)"
Maybe for one person. But when cars first came to the US many creative methods were used in purchasing the cars, until wages caught up. It will not be any different in China.
"What GM is actually predicting is that the US market for GM cars will be gone by 2020."
Wrong again.
Rhetoric isn't generally convincing.
Long, long overdue to directly confront the EU over it's "Business Launch" subsidies of each and EVERY product in the AirBus inventory. A nice 35% retaliatory tariff to offset their subsidy they refuse to relinquish would be, at a minimum, a fair response.
"If tariffs protect the rights of the individual, then they do not reduce spending power, they protect it. If a tariff allows us to preserve our system of government, then how does it harm the quality of our life?"
What rights of the individual are being protected? Do we have a right to a certain wage or specific type of employement?
Your argument is that we should have more government involvement to solve problems that are created by to much government involvement. It would make more sense to reduce corporate taxes and reduce regulations.
How profitable do you think US manufacturers would be if they could not access markets outside of the US?
Nephi has been here since 1998, and you've been here nine months -- you're just a newborn.
Free trade dogma insists that everyone benefits from it in the long run, but history does not agree. In history there are winners and there are losers. Protectionism creates winners (pre 1870 England, Wilhelmine Germany, pre 1945 America, China, India, and Japan) and free trade creates losers (Spain, Holland, post 1900 England, post 1970 America).
Free trade, like Marxism, is a textbook theory that just plain does not work in the real world because nations are no more altruistic than people. When pushed to extremes it creates economic distortions that benefit people who live off of investments at the direct expense of people who live off of paychecks as the economy stops making things.
Go Pat Go!
So America expanded economically because it had a frontier while Britain didn't ? What, pray tell, were Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and southern Africa ? Not to mention the rest of the Empire. A little thing like the Indian subcontinent ?
Yelling "commie" is what the free trader always does when the facts have argued him into a corner.
Tell me how Hamilton, Lincoln, McKinley, Taft, Coolidge, and Hoover were commies.
"(.....pre 1945 America, China, India, and Japan)"
You're kidding right? The great depression, slave wages, 3rd world lifestyles and getting a nuclear bomb dropped on you is what you would consider "benefits"? For some dumb reason, I would prefer to live with the trade policies of post 1970 America, and live in the resulting environment, than live in China, India or any other protectionist country.
Well Put Sam......
When Nixon went to China, it was with great hopes for openning up the "China market" to America exports. What has happenned is openning up the "America market" to Chinese exports. That has to qualify as one of history's all time greatest goofs.
The point I see none of the free trader ideologues addressing is the extremely pertinent one Buchanan makes about the decline of the GOP. With the decline in living standards for most Americans due to free trade, the age of GOP landslides is over. As he wisely notes, Hillary is realizing that there is more political capital in an economic populism that talks about preserving American jobs and industries than in sodomite marriage. Kerry backed off from running on economic populism and that is why he lost Ohio (Guess what ? The Democrats understand that now.). If the GOP in 2008 continues the Bush open borders free trade policies, get ready for New Deal II.
The best metaphor in my mind for the drop in American living standards, is the fact that adjusted for inflation, a category of car pretty much costs the same as it did in 1970. Only then the car loans were three years. Now they are six. And those were cars build entirely by high paid unionized factory workers, not low paid Mexicans and Chinese as now.
Nothing seems to indicate that all.
Friends, neither Beltway party is going to drain this swamp, because to them it is not a swamp at all, but a protected wetland and their natural habitat. They swim in it, feed in it, spawn in it.-- Patrick J. Buchanan, "A Plague on Both Your Houses"
You have a better one? Please, enlighten us!!
But when cars first came to the US many creative methods were used in purchasing the cars, until wages caught up.
Such as?
"What GM is actually predicting is that the US market for GM cars will be gone by 2020."
I will admit to being sarcastic.
However, Forbes Magazine is not much more optimistic about GM's market position in the USA than I am.
You are saying very silly things.
In an ideal world, income tax would be reduced by the amount raised by tariffs.
Elect better Congressmen--and for that matter, an Executive who cares.
Nixon also wanted a counter to Russia. The trade problem became fully swing when Congress and Bush made China a permanent favored trading nation. Giving factory shippers the big go-ahead.
So it remains, where are the good paying jobs in this country that free-trade shills promised would replace the low-paying jobs traded away?
Free trade shills - do some reporting. Check your local newspaper. Tell us what are the big job needs are in your area? Mine are automotive and truck driving.
Don't know about others, but I have.
If you had, you would never have quoted the reference to Smith's four exceptions since they in no way support your position for protectionist tariffs. Nice bluff, however, FR is a tougher forum than what you're probably used to.
Time for you to reread Smith. What you want is in Book Four, Chapter Two. The information is not so easily laid out, but it is there. Buchannan got it right.
Never forget that Nixon WAS a CROOK!!
Really ?
Gore got a majority of the popular vote.
Kerry was a stiff who had the most cultural left record in the Senate but he came within a few thousand votes in Ohio of taking it all.
Both of the last two elections went down to the wire. The easy GOP landslides of the 80's are gone because the GOP can no longer run on prosperity.
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.