PDA

View Full Version : U.S. Issues Free trade destroyed the US


donkhater
09-06-2011, 05:09 PM
Good article by Buchanan. I wonder when our leaders will start looking out for US interests?

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=341821

SEPTEMBER 6, 2011
How Capital Crushed Labor

By Pat Buchanan
9/6/2011
*
Once, it was a Labor Day tradition for Democrats to go to Cadillac Square in Detroit to launch their campaigns in that forge and furnace of American democracy, the greatest industrial center on earth.

Democrats may still honor the tradition. But Detroit is not what she was, not remotely. And neither is America.

Not so long ago, we made all the shoes and clothes we wore, the motorcycles and cars we drove, the radios we listened to, the TV sets we watched, the home and office calculators and computers we used.

No more. Much of what we buy is no longer made by American workers, but by Japanese, Chinese, other Asians, Canadians and Europeans.

"Why don't we make things here anymore?" is the wail.

Answer: We don't make things here anymore because it is cheaper to make them abroad and ship them back.

With an economy of $14 trillion, we may still be the best market in the world to sell into. But we are also among the most expensive markets in the world in which to produce.

Why is that? Again, the answer is simple.

U.S. wages are higher than they are almost anywhere else. Our health, safety and environmental laws are among the most stringent. Our affirmative action demands are the most exacting, except possibly for those of Malaysia and South Africa.

Does the cost of production here in America alone explain the decline in manufacturing and stagnation of workers' wages?

No. For since the Revolution, America has had a standard of living that has been the envy of the world. From the Civil War through the 1920s, as we became the greatest manufacturing power the world had ever seen, our workers enjoyed pay and benefits that were unmatched anywhere.

Yet our exports in those decades were double our imports, and our trade surpluses annually added 4 percent to the gross national product. How did we do it?

We taxed the products of foreign factories and workers and used the revenue to finance the government. We imposed tariffs of up to 40 percent on foreign goods entering our market and used the tariff money to keep taxes low in the United States.

We made foreigners pay a price to get their products into our market and made them pay to help finance our government. We put our own country and people first.

For corporate America, especially industrial America, this was nirvana. They had exclusive free access to our market, and foreign rivals had to pay a stiff fee, a tariff, to get their products in and try to compete with U.S. products in the U.S. market.

What happened to this idea that made America a self-sufficient republic, producing almost all it consumed, a nation that could stay out of the world wars as long as she wished and crush the greatest powers in Europe and Asia in less than four years after she went in?

A new class came to power that looked on tariffs as xenophobic, on economic patriotism as atavistic and on national sovereignty as an antique idea in the new world order it envisioned.

By 1976, editorial writers were talking about a new declaration of interdependence to replace Thomas Jefferson's Declaration of Independence, which was now outdated.

The new idea was to replicate America on a global scale, to throw open the borders of all nations as the borders of the 50 states were open, to abolish all tariffs and trade barriers, and to welcome the free flow of goods and people across all frontiers, thereby creating the One World that statesmen such as Woodrow Wilson and Wendell Willkie had envisioned.

By three decades ago, this globalist ideology had captured both national parties, a product of universities dominated by New Dealers.

But why did corporate America, with its privileged access to the greatest market on earth, go along with sharing that market with its manufacturing rivals from all over the world?

The answer lies in the trade-off corporate America got.

Already established in the U.S. market, corporate America could risk sharing that market if, in return, it could shift its own production out of the United States to countries where the wages were low and regulations were light.

Corporate America could there produce for a fraction of what it cost to produce here. Then these same corporations could ship their foreign-made products back to the USA and pocket the difference in the cost of production. Corporate stock prices would soar, as would corporate salaries -- and dividends, to make shareholders happy and supportive of a corporate policy of moving out of the USA.

Under globalization, America's investor class could and did get rich by the abandonment of America's working class.

America is in a terminal industrial decline because the interests of corporate America now clash directly with the interests of working America -- and, indeed, with the national interest of the United States.

And both parties are either oblivious to or indifferent of what is happening to their country.

HonestChieffan
09-06-2011, 05:11 PM
So, Pat wants tariffs?


Was he ever relevant?

donkhater
09-06-2011, 05:13 PM
So, Pat wants tariffs?


Was he ever relevant?

Does it matter? Is he wrong?

HonestChieffan
09-06-2011, 05:18 PM
I suspect the change in the economy globally since the days of tariffs (that did not function well) have some bearing on the change in the modern workforce. Pat as usual takes a very simplistic view and gives one single thing that caused the problem.

He was a marginal political journalist, a lousy candidate, and now is living on the fringes.

donkhater
09-06-2011, 05:34 PM
Sometimes things are that simple.

HonestChieffan
09-06-2011, 06:28 PM
Sometimes things are that simple.

So all we need is FDR type tariffs?

scott free
09-06-2011, 06:35 PM
Always liked Pat, a sensible republican.

Corporate America HAS abandoned the working class, they get richer but not a damned thing 'trickles down' to create jobs, its pocketed.

scott free
09-06-2011, 06:36 PM
Yeah Honest Chief, greed is good.

Taco John
09-06-2011, 07:05 PM
I like Pat on a lot of issues, but he's wrong on this one.

HonestChieffan
09-06-2011, 07:05 PM
Always liked Pat, a sensible republican.

Corporate America HAS abandoned the working class, they get richer but not a damned thing 'trickles down' to create jobs, its pocketed.

Damn. I worked for corporate America. I had no idea how totally screwed I was. Then the bastards gave me a pension. And Health Care. Greedy SOB's. And now Im burdened with this damn 401k and the stinking stock they gave me.

I need to rethink this thing.

Brock
09-06-2011, 07:27 PM
Damn. I worked for corporate America. I had no idea how totally screwed I was. Then the bastards gave me a pension. And Health Care. Greedy SOB's. And now Im burdened with this damn 401k and the stinking stock they gave me.

I need to rethink this thing.

You must be a boomer.

banyon
09-06-2011, 07:35 PM
Let's see:
1. No free trade deals and American labor force and manufacturing base intact.
2. Plethora of free trade deals, and with each the American labor force dwindles to nothing and the manufacturing base is ruined.
3. HCF's conclusion: Buchanan doesn't understand, I have some secret knowledge about how the massive trend will somehow suddenly reverse.

4. P.S. (HonestChieffan really doesn't care at all about American jobs so long as he can continue to get his cheap plastic Chinese crap at Walmart for far less than what it should be worth).

HonestChieffan
09-06-2011, 07:42 PM
Let's see:
1. No free trade deals and American labor force and manufacturing base intact.
2. Plethora of free trade deals, and with each the American labor force dwindles to nothing and the manufacturing base is ruined.
3. HCF's conclusion: Buchanan doesn't understand, I have some secret knowledge about how the massive trend will somehow suddenly reverse.

4. P.S. (HonestChieffan really doesn't care at all about American jobs so long as he can continue to get his cheap plastic Chinese crap at Walmart for far less than what it should be worth).

Tell me the story about Nafta again Banyon, I love when you tell us about Nafta.

banyon
09-06-2011, 07:46 PM
Tell me the story about Nafta again Banyon, I love when you tell us about Nafta.

You think it's a good deal?

You and Al Gore I guess.

HonestChieffan
09-06-2011, 07:48 PM
Tell how repealing NAFTA and imposing tariffs will fix our economy? Please? I want to hear it

banyon
09-06-2011, 07:49 PM
Tell how repealing NAFTA and imposing tariffs will fix our economy? Please? I want to hear it

By itself it won't. I don't think you can find anywhere I claimed that.

But keep making up stuff you misremembered that I said. Highly entertaining.

HonestChieffan
09-06-2011, 07:54 PM
Avoid the issue sport. You are the normal run of the mill drive by shoot from the hip add nothing Banyon.

If you agree with Pat, explain how imposing tariffs will work and how they will address the issues of 2011. Don't attack me and don't assume I shop at Walmart and buy Chinese crap cause its cheap. Deal with the issue counselor.

I will expect nothing from you as usual.

Tread water in a shallow puddle as usual.

BucEyedPea
09-06-2011, 08:01 PM
Tell how repealing NAFTA and imposing tariffs will fix our economy? Please? I want to hear it

Well NAFTA is not FREE trade. You gotta start with what it is and look under the phony labels. Imposing a high tariff is not a good idea. Glad to see you on the opposite side of Hamilton on this one.

donkhater
09-06-2011, 08:03 PM
I willingly confess ignorance on this issue. While simplistic, Buchanan's argument makes a lot of sense. Is it the sole reason for America's decline? Probably not. But how can free entry into the world's most lucrative market not undercut the manufacturing base?

I see some proposing that we tax American corporations that use foreign labor on the profits that they make, but isn't that the same as tariffs?

I guess the worry is that one would snuff out competition and monopolies would form, but isn't that happening anyway? And in the worlds largest, most innovative market wouldn't competition be even more fierce knowing that it is protected in some way from those countries using questionable labor practices?

banyon
09-06-2011, 08:04 PM
Avoid the issue sport. You are the normal run of the mill drive by shoot from the hip add nothing Banyon.

If you agree with Pat, explain how imposing tariffs will work and how they will address the issues of 2011. Don't attack me and don't assume I shop at Walmart and buy Chinese crap cause its cheap. Deal with the issue counselor.

I will expect nothing from you as usual.

Tread water in a shallow puddle as usual.

Avoid the issue? You were the one who wanted to turn the thread into a commentary on my prior posts, weren't you? That's you avoiding the issue, not me. I was just replying to your diverting questions.

Essentially we are at a point where tariffs don't matter. Multinational corporations wield so much influence they control the policy choices of not just this country, but nearly every other they inhabit.

While eliminating tariffs certainly did the damage, there's no fixing that in a simplistic way with just raising the tariffs back. The MNC's won't play ball, they will just expatriate or whatever, we've made them too big to control. Halting the massive export of our manufacturing base is not a bad place to start though. Hell, this morning on NPR I was reading about international demands for our newest weapons systems to be allowed to be sold to the highest bidder to "help out" our weapons manufacturers here.

I think we are essentially at the 21st century equivalent of the late 19th/early 20th century gilded age. We have an oligopoly, but now to control it, we have to move across borders. So, we either need treaties that address these realities (tax, labor, environment & trade), or international organizations to control the problem like the DOJ used to in the 20th century, but no longer can in a meaningful sense in the world economy.

We also need a national plan and strategy for what industries we want to compete in globally. It's time to stop clinging to the silly myth that Americans can do everything better than everyone else in the world for less. We can't. But the countries are successful (like Germany) are targeting and developing long-term schemes. Like Ross Perot used to say "The Rest of the world is practicing 21st century capitalism and we're practicing 19th century capitalism."

You won't see it this way of course. Just keep believing in the magic of free trade, and even though it has seemingly just gotten worse and worse with every deal, somehow...somehow...it will magically work out in the future.

banyon
09-06-2011, 08:05 PM
Well NAFTA is not FREE trade. You gotta start with what it is and look under the phony labels. Imposing a high tariff is not a good idea. Glad to see you on the opposite side of Hamilton on this one.

Don't try to talk about NAFTA, you don't understand it and can't back up this point, as you've proven time and time again in this forum.

Taco John
09-06-2011, 08:32 PM
Free trade is not regulated trade. NAFTA is regulated trade.

HonestChieffan
09-06-2011, 08:34 PM
Avoid the issue? You were the one who wanted to turn the thread into a commentary on my prior posts, weren't you? That's you avoiding the issue, not me. I was just replying to your diverting questions.

Essentially we are at a point where tariffs don't matter. Multinational corporations wield so much influence they control the policy choices of not just this country, but nearly every other they inhabit.

While eliminating tariffs certainly did the damage, there's no fixing that in a simplistic way with just raising the tariffs back. The MNC's won't play ball, they will just expatriate or whatever, we've made them too big to control. Halting the massive export of our manufacturing base is not a bad place to start though. Hell, this morning on NPR I was reading about international demands for our newest weapons systems to be allowed to be sold to the highest bidder to "help out" our weapons manufacturers here.

I think we are essentially at the 21st century equivalent of the late 19th/early 20th century gilded age. We have an oligopoly, but now to control it, we have to move across borders. So, we either need treaties that address these realities (tax, labor, environment & trade), or international organizations to control the problem like the DOJ used to in the 20th century, but no longer can in a meaningful sense in the world economy.

We also need a national plan and strategy for what industries we want to compete in globally. It's time to stop clinging to the silly myth that Americans can do everything better than everyone else in the world for less. We can't. But the countries are successful (like Germany) are targeting and developing long-term schemes. Like Ross Perot used to say "The Rest of the world is practicing 21st century capitalism and we're practicing 19th century capitalism."

You won't see it this way of course. Just keep believing in the magic of free trade, and even though it has seemingly just gotten worse and worse with every deal, somehow...somehow...it will magically work out in the future.

Planned economy. "National Plan". I like the hell out of this. Lets place our faith in Government. Government has such a track record. And of course, we don't want to be better. Average is good enough for government work.

banyon
09-06-2011, 08:38 PM
Planned economy. "National Plan". I like the hell out of this. Lets place our faith in Government. Government has such a track record. And of course, we don't want to be better. Average is good enough for government work.

Yes, let's stick with no plan and because the word "plan" is used, make Soviet-Era Communist conflation. And I'm the one misdirecting?

Don't worry, we currently have no plan. And it appears the "know nothing", no plan, let's let whatever happens to us will happen to us free trade acolytes have been winning for 30 years, so we'll probably get to see how well the no plan-plan works.

BucEyedPea
09-06-2011, 08:39 PM
We also need a national plan and strategy for what industries we want to compete in globally.
O.M.G. Mussolini would be proud. Matter of fact, Mussolini, is smiling up from his grave on Obama, giving him a brief respite from hell.

banyon
09-06-2011, 08:42 PM
Free trade is not regulated trade. NAFTA is regulated trade.

The only "regulation" in NAFTA (in a broad sense) is that a nation can't impose tariffs and if they do, a corporation can sue them. There are no real regulatory entities created by NAFTA to actually carry out any type of regulation. In fact, no regulations exist along with NAFTA like a normal US statute.


Calling that a "regulation" is pretty specious.

That's like saying Hey this buffet is all you can eat, stacking 20 plates with more than 50 people can eat, and then the hostess saying "sir, that's all we have". But you said "ALL I CAN EAT!!!"

banyon
09-06-2011, 08:43 PM
O.M.G. Mussolini would be proud. Matter of fact, Mussolini, is smiling down up from his grave on Obama.

Yeah you and your Hitler baiting BS.

You are a one trick pony.

Also I note you won't back up your silly clam on NAFTA earlier, for the umpteenth time. You're a total fraud.

BucEyedPea
09-06-2011, 08:48 PM
Free trade is not regulated trade. NAFTA is regulated trade.
I'd say it's more than that—it's managed. It's been a mercantilist's set-up from the start.

banyon
09-06-2011, 08:49 PM
I'd say it's more than that—it's managed. It's been a mercantilist's set-up from the start.

Managed by who?

What mercantilist returns?

Have you even looked at the damn thing?

Just keep making stuff up I guess.

HonestChieffan
09-06-2011, 08:50 PM
We have plenty of interference.That is the "plan"

Supplied by government bureaucrats who seem to know whats best. Business plans. Business has to plan how to be successful in spite of government. Regulation. Control. Thats the side you take. Thus business seeks ways to do what they do. And as a result, in some cases they do it in places outside the US. But you blame business for that.

One nice thing about government is if they cannot control, they regulate. Keeps a lot of government workers employed so I suppose thats a positive. And it adds expense at all levels reducing the effectiveness and efficiency of business and expense of government so government can demand more toll in the form of taxes.

If government were to change its perspective and actually help business by getting out of the way, reward success and innovation, and assist in building markets, we may have some hope. We have never had a more anti business, anti success, anti innovation administration than we have today.

Welcome to Obamaland. Where we are told we are not better, we are made to believe we are average, where government know what we need. Chevy Volt, funny lightbulbs (made in China), solar panels, windmills and unicorns.

banyon
09-06-2011, 08:52 PM
We have plenty of interference.That is the "plan"

Supplied by government bureaucrats who seem to know whats best. Business plans. Business has to plan how to be successful in spite of government. Regulation. Control. Thats the side you take. Thus business seeks ways to do what they do. And as a result, in some cases they do it in places outside the US. But you blame business for that.

One nice thing about government is if they cannot control, they regulate. Keeps a lot of government workers employed so I suppose thats a positive. And it adds expense at all levels reducing the effectiveness and efficiency of business and expense of government so government can demand more toll in the form of taxes.

If government were to change its perspective and actually help business by getting out of the way, reward success and innovation, and assist in building markets, we may have some hope. We have never had a more anti business, anti success, anti innovation administration than we have today.

Welcome to Obamaland. Where we are told we are not better, we are made to believe we are average, where government know what we need. Chevy Volt, funny lightbulbs (made in China), solar panels, windmills and unicorns.

What have they actually done that was so anti-business? (please say something besides Obamacare).

trndobrd
09-06-2011, 09:05 PM
What have they actually done that was so anti-business? (please say something besides Obamacare).


NLRB v. Boeing



(Ironically, aircraft is one of the few manufacturing industries in which the US still retains global leadership....for now.)

Taco John
09-06-2011, 09:16 PM
The only "regulation" in NAFTA (in a broad sense) is that a nation can't impose tariffs and if they do, a corporation can sue them. There are no real regulatory entities created by NAFTA to actually carry out any type of regulation. In fact, no regulations exist along with NAFTA like a normal US statute.


Calling that a "regulation" is pretty specious.

That's like saying Hey this buffet is all you can eat, stacking 20 plates with more than 50 people can eat, and then the hostess saying "sir, that's all we have". But you said "ALL I CAN EAT!!!"


Of course there is regulation in it. The agreement is thicker than your head. There is all kinds of market distorting garbage in the thing. And that's before considering all of the subsidization that goes on both for our own exports, but also for imports. NAFTA is a corporate love letter that protects the establishment corporations who wrote the thing at the expense of everyone else. We wouldn't need a massive agreement for real free trade. We'd just need to eliminate tarriffs and quotas and let the market act like a market.

What do you mean there are no regulations? The entire thing is built to "harmonize" the North American Trade zone in order to "ensure" a "level playing field." That's regulation of everything from taxes to environmental concerns. You don't "harmonize" on anything but price agreement between the buyer and the seller in real free trade.

Taco John
09-06-2011, 09:25 PM
The NAFTA harmonization system in a nutshell:

http://www.i-b-t.net/anm/templates/trade_article.asp?articleid=110&zoneid=3


Specious my ass...

HonestChieffan
09-06-2011, 09:26 PM
Those Unpatriotic companies......Hoffa demonstrates his part of the issue.

http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/teamsters-obama-should-attack-unpatriotic-busin

International Brotherhood of Teamsters Union President Jim Hoffa told Candy Crowley on “State of the Union” that President Obama should attack American companies in his upcoming speech for being “unpatriotic” by investing on other countries.

Hoffa admitted that it is cheaper for companies to invest in other countries -”we know that,” he said – but maintained that companies “have an obligation to America to build [factories] in America.” Hoffa then called on Obama to attack companies who invest overseas in his upcoming jobs speech:

I think the president should challenge the patriotism of these American corporations that are sitting on the sidelines saying, why do we have high unemployment but I am not going to hire anybody? You know, they have an obligation just like the federal government, just like Obama. We have all got to get into the game. And I don’t see that happening. So the trillions and billions of dollars that they have on the sidelines, they have money, Pfizer and General Electric, they have trillions of dollars overseas, let’s start repatriating that money. Let’s start a program to get America going again.

Hoffa also suggested a tax incentive to get companies “off the sidelines, get into the game and start spending some of that money here in America and put America back to work.”

The problem with the union pushing the President to dangle a carrot to companies is that they also have Obama carrying a huge stick in the form of his National Labor Relations Board, which has sued Boeing to close a non-union factory that the airplane manufacturer built in the right-to-work state of South Carolina.

Hoffa continued by calling Apple “unpatriotic” for considering construction of a factory in Mexico. He argued that labor costs are not too high for companies to succeed in the United States:

You can do it here. But the answer is, you have to have the incentive. And so many companies like Mr. Coffee and all of these other companies that have closed and moved to Mexico, they are wrong. They are unpatriotic.

We have got to turn this around and say, hey, we are an American company, we owe an obligation to America, let’s put America back to work.

And with that, Hoffa walked himself into an absurdity, because simultaneously he denied that labor unions have caused business costs to skyrocket, but then admitted that U.S. companies need more “incentive” to keep their operations in the country.And Hoffa talks for a minute as if he wants these companies to have some change of heart and business model, but when he says "we have to turn this around," clearly he means that President Obama has to do something, presumably through that "program" that Hoffa suggested as part of a "bold plan" from the president.

Hoffa does not seem concerned that the United States Postal Service needs a bailout from Congress to avoid having to close their doors. Why?

The New York Times explains:

As any computer user knows, the Internet revolution has led to people and businesses sending far less conventional mail.

At the same time, decades of contractual promises made to unionized workers, including no-layoff clauses, are increasing the post office’s costs. Labor represents 80 percent of the agency’s expenses, compared with 53 percent at United Parcel Service and 32 percent at FedEx, its two biggest private competitors. Postal workers also receive more generous health benefits than most other federal employees.


In other words, the USPS needs Congress to pay for their union contracts, while FedEx and UPS are benefiting from a much smaller union force. A bailout for the Post Office is a bailout for labor unions, just as the auto company bailouts proved little more than kickbacks to unions, and just as a program that punishes American companies for avoiding Hoffa and his union will be another example of the close alliance between President Obama and Big Labor in this country.

It will be interesting, and perhaps very troubling, to see if President Obama takes his policies positions from the Teamsters Union president.

BucEyedPea
09-06-2011, 09:26 PM
It'll take you a month to read it full time though. Yeah, free. My arse! That and the tribunals are already overriding US Laws.

http://www.nafta-sec-alena.org/en/view.aspx?x=343

Rain Man
09-06-2011, 09:35 PM
I hesitate to agree with Pat Buchanan on anything, but at the same time I think we should do reciprocal tariffs. If Japan and Korea put 100% tariffs on imported American cars, we should put a 100% tariff on imported Japanese cars. It seems like a pretty simple way to balance our trade, because right now it seems like other countries do well by limiting American exports while making money off of American imports.

Dave Lane
09-06-2011, 09:41 PM
I hesitate to agree with Pat Buchanan on anything, but at the same time I think we should do reciprocal tariffs. If Japan and Korea put 100% tariffs on imported American cars, we should put a 100% tariff on imported Japanese cars. It seems like a pretty simple way to balance our trade, because right now it seems like other countries do well by limiting American exports while making money off of American imports.

I've long been in favor of this. Our tariffs are your tariffs.

BucEyedPea
09-06-2011, 09:45 PM
I hesitate to agree with Pat Buchanan on anything, but at the same time I think we should do reciprocal tariffs. If Japan and Korea put 100% tariffs on imported American cars, we should put a 100% tariff on imported Japanese cars. It seems like a pretty simple way to balance our trade, because right now it seems like other countries do well by limiting American exports while making money off of American imports.

Well, I wouldn't like that since I prefer to drive Japanese cars. I don't like being forced to pay more for them because of the govt and American is crap.
It prevents me from having an individual choice in order for the nation to have a balance of trade—which quite frankly does not have to be balanced to have a prosperous economy. Afterall, wages are just one indicator of improved standard of living. Another is falling prices due to the international division of labor.

Let's just recognize these are not really free trade agreements but agreements that benefit certain corporations connected to govt power to create markets for it and manage jobs out of the country as opposed to them leaving or staying due to market forces which includes when people here will not work in some jobs or any other reasons. This would be a more natural process.

FD
09-06-2011, 09:48 PM
Just what we need, new taxes on all goods being imported. Maybe after that we can fill our ports up with rocks to keep foreign ships out. After that, I think Texas should slap a huge new tax on all goods made outside of Texas.

HonestChieffan
09-06-2011, 09:49 PM
I hesitate to agree with Pat Buchanan on anything, but at the same time I think we should do reciprocal tariffs. If Japan and Korea put 100% tariffs on imported American cars, we should put a 100% tariff on imported Japanese cars. It seems like a pretty simple way to balance our trade, because right now it seems like other countries do well by limiting American exports while making money off of American imports.

http://www.customs.go.jp/english/tariff/2011_8/data/i201108e_87.htm

no tariff/duty on US Cars exported to Japan. I may be missing something but it looks like this is a non issue.

2bikemike
09-06-2011, 09:56 PM
I hesitate to agree with Pat Buchanan on anything, but at the same time I think we should do reciprocal tariffs. If Japan and Korea put 100% tariffs on imported American cars, we should put a 100% tariff on imported Japanese cars. It seems like a pretty simple way to balance our trade, because right now it seems like other countries do well by limiting American exports while making money off of American imports.

I aagree with you there. It makes no sense that our exports are Tariffed at such exhorbitant rates and yet we let others import at the lower rates.

scott free
09-06-2011, 09:57 PM
Damn. I worked for corporate America. I had no idea how totally screwed I was. Then the bastards gave me a pension. And Health Care. Greedy SOB's. And now Im burdened with this damn 401k and the stinking stock they gave me.

I need to rethink this thing.

Yeah, lemme guess... you got your little slice of the American Pie back in the 70's or 80's, when jobs that pay a nice living wage, that might take you on for 20 years or so & give you a nifty lil cherry pension on top of it, were common.

So now that you've got yours, piss on all of the lazy, shiftless bastards that werent fortunate enough to be looking for a career back then, right? The billionaires have Americas best interests at heart, is that right?

Let them eat cake say the repubs eh? i'll bet my life most Americans arent looking for a Goddamned handout like way too many repubs these days seem to think, but how about the same fair shake you got?

scott free
09-06-2011, 10:05 PM
'Social Security is a Lie and a Fraud'... thats what this new crop of repubs believes, the same SS that pretty much keeps millions of retired Americans from dying alone in a fricking cave.

Taco John
09-06-2011, 10:06 PM
I hesitate to agree with Pat Buchanan on anything, but at the same time I think we should do reciprocal tariffs. If Japan and Korea put 100% tariffs on imported American cars, we should put a 100% tariff on imported Japanese cars. It seems like a pretty simple way to balance our trade, because right now it seems like other countries do well by limiting American exports while making money off of American imports.

That plan is great for government, bad for consumers.

T-post Tom
09-06-2011, 10:13 PM
http://www.learnnc.org/lp/media/uploads/2009/12/ross_perot.jpg

HonestChieffan
09-06-2011, 10:17 PM
http://hts.usitc.gov/

As you would expect, the US schedule of import duty is not simple but here it is. Looks like cars as an example are duty free...makes no sense based on what I believed but maybe its the result of trade agreements where our exports dont get hammered and their imports dont either.

Lots of stuff does have tariffs already but you have to search to find out what and then find out who has a sweetheart deal in the notes.

teedubya
09-06-2011, 10:18 PM
The problem is simple... we took most of the brightest minds... and put them to work in the military industrial complex, where we'd spent 50%+ of our tax dollars on.

We then built over 700 military bases in over 150+ countries. We tried to be the modern day Roman Empire...

But the winners are still the puppet masters... who made these policies... the trustees of the Federal Reserve Bank and the leaders of the World Bank.

War is profitable. That's why we always have them. If they weren't profitable to big business, it wouldn't be America's #1 export.

We used to make products. Now, we make war. And we have this internet thing. Which is making SOME money... but the top companies on the stock market, Apple, MobileExxon, etc... their market value is 350 Billion... our national debt is like 14 Trillion.

It takes 40 Apples to equal the US debt. Our best company in the country... 1/40 of the US debt.

The Federal Reserve trustees... run a business that prints dollar bills and loans them. It costs $0.06 to print a $1, 5, 10, 20, 50 or a $100 bill. Then, through fractional reserve banking, they can loan that $100 bill out 10x. Thus, the $0.06 becomes $1000... and gets loaned out on the smaller banks end... and they get their money back... PLUS interest...

If you then use that money to buy a house, more money gets created from thin air, as your $150,000 mortgage becomes $450,000 in mortgage payments... then you package all of the bad mortgages up and sell them and you have "The Big Short"...

Then, we pay taxes on everything, that we buy with that fictitious $1000 birthed from 6 pennies.

The FED prints money at $0.06 per $100 and the US is broke.

That's why America is ****ed up and capitalism has some flaws. For capitalism and democracy to truly work, you can't have aristocracies and oligarchies running the show.

Rain Man
09-06-2011, 10:22 PM
That plan is great for government, bad for consumers.

It bothers me to propose it because I tend to be pro-free market. But I think there are two issues at play. First, if we provide the same goods and services but are shut out of competing in foreign markets while they can compete in ours, it's not fair. Second, and a little more esoteric, I think that wages are like a body of water. They'll eventually settle into an equilibrium that's flat. If our workers are competing against people who are willing or required to work at 1/20th of our wages, eventually either their wages will go up and ours will go down to meet somewhere in the middle. And I don't really want to see America move down to the same standard of living as Turkey or Costa Rica or whatever country tends to be in that middle ground.

scott free
09-06-2011, 10:29 PM
No reply HC? you must be sooo content in your smugness.

Big Money > your hardworking neighbors.

T-post Tom
09-06-2011, 10:32 PM
Those Unpatriotic companies......Hoffa demonstrates his part of the issue.

Wait a minute! Mr. Anschutz's conservative rag demonizing the unions? Now that's a shocker.

Rain Man
09-06-2011, 10:38 PM
I think another good answer to trade imbalances is to promote the development of labor unions in China. The workers there are at the industrial phase where they need protection, and it'll also make them less competitive against U.S. production.

HonestChieffan
09-06-2011, 10:44 PM
No reply HC? you must be sooo content in your smugness.

Big Money > your hardworking neighbors.

Not much to say. You hit it. Back in the old days we worked few hours, were paid way more than we deserved, cars were faster, women were easy, and beer was cold and free. Companies were free with money, bonus', benefits, and goodness flowed like honey. All you had to do was stay awake and promotions and perks were lavished on you. No one had to work. If you wanted to be promoted all you did was wait your turn. Competition for jobs was non existent. In fact, companies vied for an opportunity to steal you away with a bigger job and cars. Challenges were few and far between.

They gave you pensions and we all had a guaranteed job for as long as we wanted. No one was ever laid off and business grew on its own, it was almost organic. Open the doors and people came to buy your wares.

After the required number of years we got an out. Huge 401's handed to us. Life is good.

You seem to have a good handle on how things were back in the day. And have about the same perspective on the life of toil you face. Sucks to have been born in a time when so many things are designed to be a shitstorm of strife, regret and struggle. The Grapes of Wrath 2011.

Good luck and smooth sailing to you. Watch the man.

HonestChieffan
09-06-2011, 10:46 PM
I think another good answer to trade imbalances is to promote the development of labor unions in China. The workers there are at the industrial phase where they need protection, and it'll also make them less competitive against U.S. production.

The old if you cant beat em, make em look like you gambit. Maybe Hoffa and his buds need to look into that. Think of the dues they are missing from a bazillion chinese.

teedubya
09-06-2011, 10:48 PM
http://o.aolcdn.com/os/kol/pennies.jpg

=

http://image.shutterstock.com/display_pic_with_logo/7015/7015,1119398094,2/stock-photo-one-thousand-dollars-on-a-black-background-to-increase-contrast-384074.jpg

Taco John
09-06-2011, 10:50 PM
It bothers me to propose it because I tend to be pro-free market. But I think there are two issues at play. First, if we provide the same goods and services but are shut out of competing in foreign markets while they can compete in ours, it's not fair. Second, and a little more esoteric, I think that wages are like a body of water. They'll eventually settle into an equilibrium that's flat. If our workers are competing against people who are willing or required to work at 1/20th of our wages, eventually either their wages will go up and ours will go down to meet somewhere in the middle. And I don't really want to see America move down to the same standard of living as Turkey or Costa Rica or whatever country tends to be in that middle ground.

I understand the urges and drives of protectionism, but the problem with it is that it always damages the consumer. The protections that you suggest seem fair on the surface until you examine who they ultimately protect: the elites.

If we were to put a tarriff on Japanese vehicles to protect American vehicles, it would do serious damage to consumer choice here because prices would be so high that they'd have to choose American. Who benefits? American workers? You might see it that way, but the real benefit goes to the corporations. They no longer have to worry about competitive price competition. They no longer have to innovate to keep their customers.

Worse, protectionism only encourages more protectionism - and all this does is distort the market and create inefficiencies that harm people. Ultimately, you must trust the people. If trade is imbalanced, then those markets will be unattractive to the producers who are looking for ways to maximize their earnings. Eliminate the political boundaries when you look at trade, and leave the decision-making to the producers and you'll have a healthy market that maximizes efficiencies and drives dollars homeward.

scott free
09-06-2011, 10:58 PM
Not much to say. You hit it. Back in the old days we worked few hours, were paid way more than we deserved, cars were faster, women were easy, and beer was cold and free. Companies were free with money, bonus', benefits, and goodness flowed like honey. All you had to do was stay awake and promotions and perks were lavished on you. No one had to work. If you wanted to be promoted all you did was wait your turn. Competition for jobs was non existent. In fact, companies vied for an opportunity to steal you away with a bigger job and cars. Challenges were few and far between.

They gave you pensions and we all had a guaranteed job for as long as we wanted. No one was ever laid off and business grew on its own, it was almost organic. Open the doors and people came to buy your wares.

After the required number of years we got an out. Huge 401's handed to us. Life is good.

You seem to have a good handle on how things were back in the day. And have about the same perspective on the life of toil you face. Sucks to have been born in a time when so many things are designed to be a shitstorm of strife, regret and struggle. The Grapes of Wrath 2011.

Good luck and smooth sailing to you. Watch the man.

Good to see that smarmy attitude about everyone but you & yours get some daylight.

Sure, you had to work for what you have, this world has never been a picnic... but the economic climate was a million miles away from today, dont play charades... a lot of shit was handed to your generation & now that you have it, hell to the rest.

The super rich know whats best, they're striving to create a better America? do you 'honestly' believe that?

BTW - its not 'an SOB', its 'a SOB'.

HonestChieffan
09-06-2011, 11:07 PM
Good to see that smarmy attitude about everyone but you & yours get some daylight.

Sure, you had to work for what you have, this world has never been a picnic... but the economic climate was a million miles away from today, dont play charades... a lot of shit was handed to your generation & now that you have it, hell to the rest.

The super rich know whats best, they're striving to create a better America? do you 'honestly' believe that?

BTW - its not 'an SOB', its 'a SOB'.

Like I said, good luck. Looks like you will need it.

scott free
09-06-2011, 11:27 PM
Like I said, good luck. Looks like you will need it.

I dont need a damned thing from someone like you.

HonestChieffan
09-06-2011, 11:46 PM
I dont need a damned thing from someone like you.

Well, wishes of good luck are still nice to have. Even from someone like me. Or anyone for that matter.

JohnnyV13
09-07-2011, 12:19 AM
First of all, most of this discussion is behind the times, as is Buchanan's op.

The focus of today's trade war is less about goods than it is about JOBS. The way this trade battle is fought is by manipulating monetary policy in order to attract outsourced jobs.

For example, many SERVICES are now outsourced overseas; which was impossible until very recently. To implement a tariff plan, you'd have to tax companies that outsource services.

FOr people who use foreign based customer service, how are you going to tax them? Customer service isn't a profit center for most companies. Do you want goverment to require american-based companies that use foreign call centers to have to report the number of foreign employees then tax them for "windfall" profits for not using AMericans?

What about companies that hire foreign design teams? Or, Goldman Sachs hiring analysts in India? Should we then tax them for these practices?

Of course, companies would adjust. For example, instead of hiring directly, they could create"sister" corporations overseas, then pay "consult" fees (unless, of course, you start taxing someone for hiring a foreign based consultant).

The key behind this is currency differences, which gives you substantially larger buying power in other economies. For example, a US dollar will currently buy about 7 times more services in the Philippines than here.

The Hoffa article is comical. If a company chooses not to outsource such things, they will eventually find their venture capital drying up, because investors will back companies with higher profit margins. Or, foreign companies will use that cheap labor, and flood us with goods.

scott free
09-07-2011, 12:19 AM
we are made to believe we are average, where government know what we need. Chevy Volt, funny lightbulbs (made in China), solar panels, windmills and unicorns.

Indeed, because moving, evolving as a nation into a future where the US isnt sucking Crown Prince Abdullahs fat, hypocritical, jihad on tuesday, American largesse on wednesdays, tit isnt so ****ing terrible.

Lets just keep sucking it, who needs change right? your son wont have to go fight for it anyway, so who cares?!

Earthling
09-07-2011, 12:41 AM
All I know is I've got two cows I will trade for someone to paint my house.

scott free
09-07-2011, 12:46 AM
There are a ton of good people here, of every & all stripe... but some make me wanna puke up a turd.

mlyonsd
09-07-2011, 06:55 AM
Buchanan is spot on. Way too after the fact to fix anything but spot on.

HonestChieffan
09-07-2011, 07:18 AM
First of all, most of this discussion is behind the times, as is Buchanan's op.

The focus of today's trade war is less about goods than it is about JOBS. The way this trade battle is fought is by manipulating monetary policy in order to attract outsourced jobs.

For example, many SERVICES are now outsourced overseas; which was impossible until very recently. To implement a tariff plan, you'd have to tax companies that outsource services.

FOr people who use foreign based customer service, how are you going to tax them? Customer service isn't a profit center for most companies. Do you want goverment to require american-based companies that use foreign call centers to have to report the number of foreign employees then tax them for "windfall" profits for not using AMericans?

What about companies that hire foreign design teams? Or, Goldman Sachs hiring analysts in India? Should we then tax them for these practices?

Of course, companies would adjust. For example, instead of hiring directly, they could create"sister" corporations overseas, then pay "consult" fees (unless, of course, you start taxing someone for hiring a foreign based consultant).

The key behind this is currency differences, which gives you substantially larger buying power in other economies. For example, a US dollar will currently buy about 7 times more services in the Philippines than here.

The Hoffa article is comical. If a company chooses not to outsource such things, they will eventually find their venture capital drying up, because investors will back companies with higher profit margins. Or, foreign companies will use that cheap labor, and flood us with goods.


the old Competitive Advantage.....some things never do change. Innovation is the key and that is the goal of every business. Innovation keeps business going, growing and profitable. Government cannot and should not be the one to determine where and what is innovated. It won't work. Turn the creative energy of the people loose and innovation will happen. It always has, it always will. Government is an impediment to innovation and growth.

mlyonsd
09-07-2011, 07:23 AM
the old Competitive Advantage.....some things never do change. Innovation is the key and that is the goal of every business. Innovation keeps business going, growing and profitable. Government cannot and should not be the one to determine where and what is innovated. It won't work. Turn the creative energy of the people loose and innovation will happen. It always has, it always will. Government is an impediment to innovation and growth.Sure it will. For those that are in the position to allow it to work. But if you're a worker bee here you're screwed.

BucEyedPea
09-07-2011, 08:40 AM
I think another good answer to trade imbalances is to promote the development of labor unions in China. The workers there are at the industrial phase where they need protection, and it'll also make them less competitive against U.S. production.

Why is it America's job to promote labor unions in a foreign country? This is also more govt interference in markets—exactly what has caused our demise.

Taco John
09-07-2011, 11:56 AM
All I know is I've got two cows I will trade for someone to paint my house.

Honestly, I bet you could get that deal through Craigslist.

Jenson71
09-07-2011, 04:23 PM
Why is it America's job to promote labor unions in a foreign country? This is also more govt interference in markets—exactly what has caused our demise.

There are other ways to promote labor unions in emerging markets besides national pressure. A lot of people view labor unions as a human rights issue, and since governments can legitimately pressure other governments to honor human rights, it's a possibility.

vailpass
09-07-2011, 04:47 PM
Yeah, lemme guess... you got your little slice of the American Pie back in the 70's or 80's, when jobs that pay a nice living wage, that might take you on for 20 years or so & give you a nifty lil cherry pension on top of it, were common.

So now that you've got yours, piss on all of the lazy, shiftless bastards that werent fortunate enough to be looking for a career back then, right? The billionaires have Americas best interests at heart, is that right?

Let them eat cake say the repubs eh? i'll bet my life most Americans arent looking for a Goddamned handout like way too many repubs these days seem to think, but how about the same fair shake you got?

Looks like somebody has a case of the bitterman. A lot easier to tell yourself other people had it easy than it is to admit you need to work hard. And no, I don't have any spare change. There is no such thing.

banyon
09-07-2011, 04:57 PM
Of course there is regulation in it. The agreement is thicker than your head. There is all kinds of market distorting garbage in the thing. And that's before considering all of the subsidization that goes on both for our own exports, but also for imports. NAFTA is a corporate love letter that protects the establishment corporations who wrote the thing at the expense of everyone else. We wouldn't need a massive agreement for real free trade. We'd just need to eliminate tarriffs and quotas and let the market act like a market.

It's really not that massive of an agreement. I've read it and studied it. You probably should before you run your mouth about it and just blurt out opinions based on the first think you google on it. Here's a link to it. It's 393 pages.

http://www.worldtradelaw.net/fta/agreements/nafta.pdf [/quote]

But in your typical oversimplified black and white, you ignore the practical realities. You cite in your next post some rules about the system to identify a product's country of origin and bemoan "oh noes regulations111!1!"

Crafting an international trade agreement can't just be two dudes on a couple of stumps in a field passing a napkin around with the words "WE GOTS FREE TRADE NOW YO, SIGNED MEXICO, CANADA, AND THE US".

Did you ever stop to think about why you might want ways to identify a product's country of origin? If you don't have them, what's to stop a non-party country from slipping their goods through one of the party countries and continuing to screw you on their own tariffs? That rule is in place to ensure the agreement can be practically implemented. It's certainly not very onerous.

What do you mean there are no regulations? The entire thing is built to "harmonize" the North American Trade zone in order to "ensure" a "level playing field." That's regulation of everything from taxes to environmental concerns. You don't "harmonize" on anything but price agreement between the buyer and the seller in real free trade.

Well, now I'm absolutely your knowledge only comes from an internet rant you found somewhere else, because there are no enforceable environmental rules AT ALL in the agreement. There is a toothless advisory council, but they have no powers of enforcement.

And OF COURSE there are tax rules, because if a country could simply devise some camouflaged tax in lieu of the tariffs, again, the agreement would be impractical to carry out.

The rules are only de minimis (perhaps with the exceoption of the corporate-state arbitration provision) as to what has to be there to make a free trade zone work.

I'd love to see the fantasyland supercoollibertee Ron Paul model free trade treaty that works without any rules.

JohnnyV13
09-07-2011, 06:37 PM
It's really not that massive of an agreement. I've read it and studied it. You probably should before you run your mouth about it and just blurt out opinions based on the first think you google on it. Here's a link to it. It's 393 pages.

[URL="http://www.worldtradelaw.net/fta/agreements/nafta.pdf"]http://www.worldtradelaw.net/fta/agreements/nafta.pdf

But in your typical oversimplified black and white, you ignore the practical realities. You cite in your next post some rules about the system to identify a product's country of origin and bemoan "oh noes regulations111!1!"

Crafting an international trade agreement can't just be two dudes on a couple of stumps in a field passing a napkin around with the words "WE GOTS FREE TRADE NOW YO, SIGNED MEXICO, CANADA, AND THE US".

Did you ever stop to think about why you might want ways to identify a product's country of origin? If you don't have them, what's to stop a non-party country from slipping their goods through one of the party countries and continuing to screw you on their own tariffs? That rule is in place to ensure the agreement can be practically implemented. It's certainly not very onerous.



Well, now I'm absolutely your knowledge only comes from an internet rant you found somewhere else, because there are no enforceable environmental rules AT ALL in the agreement. There is a toothless advisory council, but they have no powers of enforcement.

And OF COURSE there are tax rules, because if a country could simply devise some camouflaged tax in lieu of the tariffs, again, the agreement would be impractical to carry out.

The rules are only de minimis (perhaps with the exceoption of the corporate-state arbitration provision) as to what has to be there to make a free trade zone work.

I'd love to see the fantasyland supercoollibertee Ron Paul model free trade treaty that works without any rules.

But, but, but, Banyon, yous know anyone whos uses LAWYERS in an agreement has ta be EVIL!!!!!

Why, da only reason anyone ever involves a lawyer in draft'n an agreement, is cause they's try'n to cheat the working man somehow.

BucEyedPea
09-07-2011, 08:04 PM
It's really not that massive of an agreement. I've read it and studied it. You probably should before you run your mouth about it and just blurt out opinions based on the first think you google on it. Here's a link to it. It's 393 pages.

It's 1700 pages ...which is quite a lot for something labelled "free". It's not worth reading, nor does anyone have to read all of it to form a position on it. You can find people who have read it that have the same pov as Taco. Then again, most of NAFTA’s most passionate supportes in Congress and statist economists never read the agreement either. Yet they made pie in the sky promises anyway. You just can't resist an attack on anyone wanting a much less-controlled society just because your ideology is one of the control ideologies. You hate freedom but can't admit it. You just show it every day in how you respond to others that do.

banyon
09-07-2011, 08:09 PM
It's 1700 pages ...which is quite a lot for something labelled "free". It's not worth reading, nor does anyone have to read all of it to form a position on it. You can find people who have read it that have the same pov as Taco. But you just can't resist an attack on anyone wanting a much less-controlled society just because your ideology is one of the control ideologies. You hate freedom but can't admit it.

Yeah, I hate freedom. Mussolini.

That's the same trick.

Like I said. Fraud.

(and it's not 1700 pages unless you include the index with product codes or something, it's the number of pages in my link which anyone can easily click and see.)

And bear in mind I'm not defending NAFTA, I despise NAFTA. (But of course, because I disagree with your holy pov, I must be a mussolini freedom hater). It's just that your claims that somehow, if only it were more free-tradey in some vague inexplicable way that I can't tell you, but if only you read all the books I read and went to Misean school like I did, you'll understand, are absolutely ridiculous.

jiveturkey
09-08-2011, 07:47 AM
I've always wondered how free trade can be considered free trade if all of your trade partners are manipulating the playing field.

I don't see how true free trade is ever a real possibility.