at this point will go to update
Free Republic's computer system
We have the need for SPEED before the election!
Donate Just One Monthly
And Become a FR Hero
Sponsors will contribute $10
For each new monthly sign-up
Posted on 02/20/2012 4:35:01 PM PST by tobyhill
Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum promised Monday to revive manufacturing, cut taxes and shrink government, pledges that drew loud applause from conservative Michigan voters who said he was more in line with their values than native son and GOP rival Mitt Romney.
Santorum's growing connection with Michigan conservatives risks embarrassing Romney in his home state. Romney was counting on a strong finish in Michigan's presidential primary on Feb. 28 to carry him into the big, multistate round of voting a week later on Super Tuesday.
But Santorum, fueled by a recent trio of victories and sensing an opportunity to upset or at least bloody Romney with a strong primary finish of his own, is charging hard at a state that he says shares many of the same characteristics as his blue-collar state of Pennsylvania. Santorum pledged Monday that, under his administration of less government and more individual freedom, "manufacturing jobs will come back here to Muskegon."
(Excerpt) Read more at google.com ...
Although George did like big government, he wasn't a born to privilege leftist rectum like Mitt, Bill Ayers and FDR. George had to work hard and get along with people to get to where he wanted to be. Unlike the other three who all thought they could hit a triple because they were born on third base.
The coming manufacturing revolution is ALL robotic with very little labor.
Sobered up yet?
This. Winning a national election is about building coalitions. Reagan understood that and so does Santorum.
Romney can't possibly build that coalition and Gingrich, while holding appeal to segments of the base, can't do it either.
You are confusing protective tariffs which our founding fathers believed in and supported with political favoritism and graft which can occur in any direction possible.
Any increases in costs to consumers are more than offset by the savings that results from Americans going back to work. And there is still competition between American firms to drive the price down.
Have you done your morning exercises for Dear Leader Komrade?
Far beyond that, it takes many years to train skilled tradesmen for MFG jobs, like tool + die makers, and there is no way to run a Mfg plant without skilled tradesmen. It would shut down within 48 hrs.
You can't just poop out tradesmen as needed and they are expensive to train, a long term investment.
For national defense reasons, a good case can be made for maintaining a Mfg capability in the US. The private sector Mfg plants would train and maintain a steady supply of skilled tradesmen in the general course of business operation.
If and when needed for national defense we would have a supply to draw from.
Think of it in farming terms. We could scale back on American farming and depend on the world market for our food needs, but we damn sure better save some seed somewhere in case that supply gets cut off.
Those skilled tradesmen are our Mfg seed stock.
I have been trying for years to get one of these “free traitors” to response to the national security issue. Hasn’t happened yet, but I am hoping.
So person A's increased costs are "offset" by person B's increased profits? That is exactly what I said: the government is taking money from person A and giving it to person B.
What you fail to explain is why this is any different than what Obama is already doing. After all, when he "saved" GM the losses by the bondholders, dealers, and taxpayers were "offset" by the payoffs to the UAW.
Question: Do you know the percentage of private sector(both manufacturing and other) workers that are unionized? And a follow up question: Which way is the trend going?
Why do you ask?
No, I said "More than offset". What you are willfully ignoring, is that instead of the Communist Chinese government getting the proceeds, it's an American worker. That's a big big, huge difference.
Now the government pays out unemployment, food stamps, medicaid and disability so that you can get the absolute cheapest price from the communists. The government is subsidizing your cheapest price now.
It would be better if instead of government paying out for the unemployed, that we actually put them to work and let them pay taxes. And if that means you have to buy from an American manufacturer instead of the communists, so be it.
Because here is a clue. The communist government isn't playing by our rules.
The communist government isn't going to take the proceeds and buy american goods even if their people want them. They are going to buy American businesses and dismantle them and ship them to China and put more of their own people to work. And they are buying American debt to enslave us. And they are locking up raw materials so that they will be the only game in town.
Wise up! Go back and read that introductory level macro-economics book. And pay attention this time to the exception to the free trade argument when the trading partners are unequal.
An example of free trade working is this:
An example of Free trade not working is this:
You are making the argument for jobs in general, not manufacturing jobs in particular. Why do the new jobs need to be in manufacturing?
Define "unequal".
Your problem is that you know absolutely nothing about economics.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparative_advantage
What?!! Why would I even think to go there? They are completely different!!! It's like saying I failed to explain the difference between a watermelon and a cow turd.
Tariffs are nothing like what Obama did. Tariffs protect the domestic market, while still allowing competition within the market. And generating revenues to our government when foreign countries subsidize their products or pay slave labor rates like the communists.
What Obama did was to take control of a single business entity and install government appointed administrators. Since he didn't protect the market, there is no reason to think that this is anything but putting a band-aid on a cancer. Obama's bail-out is nothing but a big unemployment check, just pretend you are still working.
It might give GM some time but otherwise does nothing to cure the underlying disease. In fact, given the emphasis on the Volt, it appears to have accelerated the disease.
No the problem is that you read two paragraphs on comparative advantage on wikipedia and think you understand it.
Perhaps you didn't read the assumptions on that page in wikipedia where it said "Full employment - if one or other of the economies has less than full employment of factors of production, then this excess capacity must usually be used up before the comparative advantage reasoning can be applied." Does 23% unemployment sound like full employment to you?
And perhaps you didn't read all the critiques in the following paragraphs.
If you pay attention you'll notice that the first examples the partners are both trading goods, not one partner trading goods and the other debt and equities. China is not buying our goods, so raise the tariffs.
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.