Economic Treason

Discussion in 'Free-For-All Archives' started by KenH, Oct 1, 2004.

  1. KenH

    KenH
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Likes Received:
    0
    "The Republican party, which had presided over America’s rise to manufacturing pre-eminence, has acquiesced in the deindustrialisation of the nation to gratify transnational corporations whose oligarchs are the party’s financiers. US corporations are shutting factories here, opening them in China, ‘outsourcing’ back-office work to India, importing Asians to take white-collar jobs from Americans, and hiring illegal aliens for their service jobs. The Republican party has signed off on economic treason. " - Pat Buchanan

    I would add that the Democrats are just as culpable.
     
  2. The Galatian

    The Galatian
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2001
    Messages:
    9,687
    Likes Received:
    0
    Of course. The democrats are being paid off by the same people paying off Bush.

    Most of the magnates contribute huge amounts to both wings of the demopublicans.

    Makes sense.
     
  3. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    The question is, If all those jobs were in America, paying American wages, who would be able to purchase the products? I sure wouldn't. Only the wealthiest 1% would be able to. I think Buchanan is way overstating the point with such rhetoric. This is not a democrat vs republican issue as much as it is a financial one. Companies have to remain viablet to survive. And of the major costs they can control is wages.
     
  4. LadyEagle

    LadyEagle
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b> <img src =/israel.gif>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2002
    Messages:
    22,028
    Likes Received:
    1
    So if your church decided they were paying you too much and wanted to import a pastor from Peru at half your salary, you wouldn't mind. [​IMG]
     
  5. KenH

    KenH
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Likes Received:
    0
    And, Pastor Larry, how do you expect your church members to pay your salary if they are unemployed or working at jobs with third world-type wages?
     
  6. williemakeit

    williemakeit
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2004
    Messages:
    393
    Likes Received:
    0
    And he probably made the statement while drinking coffee from a 'Made in China' mug, behind his Dell computer, in his 'Assembled in Bangladesh or Mexico' business suit.

    Who of us are willing to initiate change, and can we do it on a large enough scale? Are we willing to pay the higher price of buying American (if such a thing exist anymore)? America began the shift to a service-oriented economy years ago. It will continue on that course. My advice--Invest in the Blue Chip, dividend paying companies that are making the money. Pat is probably pretty accurate in his prediction regarding America in 2050, so you will need to know the exact time to cash out and flee. To which country?. Who knows?.
     
  7. poncho

    poncho
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2004
    Messages:
    19,657
    Likes Received:
    128
    Pastor Larry is correct when he says this is not a republican vs democrat issue. It's a global socialism issue, and as such it is one sided but pretends to have two sides to keep the peasants from becoming wise to the backroom dealings going on between those that seek the next one world empire.

    American's making American wages and having a strong middle class just gets in the way of global progress.
     
  8. williemakeit

    williemakeit
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2004
    Messages:
    393
    Likes Received:
    0
    Well said, Poncho.
     
  9. poncho

    poncho
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2004
    Messages:
    19,657
    Likes Received:
    128
    Seems like folks only believe in labels, so lets pass this one around awhile...Global Socialism...paid for with your money and your future with a little help from our good friends from south of the border.

    Have a nice day Amexica.
     
  10. poncho

    poncho
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2004
    Messages:
    19,657
    Likes Received:
    128
    And as G.W would say "citizens of the world" have a good day!
     
  11. LadyEagle

    LadyEagle
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b> <img src =/israel.gif>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2002
    Messages:
    22,028
    Likes Received:
    1
  12. billwald

    billwald
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2000
    Messages:
    11,414
    Likes Received:
    0
    Sending jobs will help them faster than sending missionaries.
     
  13. poncho

    poncho
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2004
    Messages:
    19,657
    Likes Received:
    128
    What can I say LE? I guess I was just feeling my oatmeal kick in! [​IMG]
     
  14. Pennsylvania Jim

    Pennsylvania Jim
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2000
    Messages:
    7,693
    Likes Received:
    0
    The founder intended for the federal government to use tarrifs as a source of income. If they would replace much of the income tax with tarrifs, prices of imports would rise, and disposable income would rise proportionately, allowing workers to produce goods in the USA. As has been pointed out, though, the "big boys" recognize no national boundaries in their businesses, and pretty much own the politicians.

    The effects of the gutting of our manufacturing base will be staggering, possibly of historically tragic proportions. But, the politicians don't care...we pay their fat pensions or go to jail.
     
  15. Craigbythesea

    Craigbythesea
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    5,500
    Likes Received:
    20
    I believe that much of the fault lies with the consumer who shops at Wal-Mart and buys goods made in China rather than U.S. goods at a store that pays union wages and gives its employees a good benefit package. About 25 years ago I happened to walk past a car that had U.S. Navy decals on it, including three stars, indicating that the car was owned and used by a three star admiral. I also noticed that the car was made in Japan. I was sick the rest of the day.

    I am careful where I shop and I ALWAYS look at the label to find out where the goods are made. If you want to bring jobs back to the U.S., buy goods made in the U.S. If you really can’t afford to buy new goods made in the U.S., buy them used in a thrift store, but don’t support manufactures who have moved to China where they can legally get away with paying their employees less than a dollar an hour.

    And when you buy that car, SUV, or truck, look at the sticker to see where the parts were manufactured and where the parts were assembled.

    For those of you who live outside of the U.S. and are citizens of another country, I encourage you to buy products made in your own country.
     
  16. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    A pastor from Peru could not live in Peru and make Peruvian wages and pastor this church.

    Several issues in play here. If they are unemployed, they find jobs. There are jobs available and the economy is picking up. If they don't have jobs, we who do have jobs try to help them as we can. If they are working for lower salaries, God still takes care of his people. The people at Macedonia gave out of their poverty ... What a testimony against the materialistic church we live in today.

    The US has never "brought jobs back." They ahve always created new and better jobs. You know folks, like isn't fair and it is not the governments job to make it fair. It is remarkable to me to see people arguing that America should be fat and happy while the rest of the world lives in poverty because their jobs don't pay much money. Why do you think we as American Christians have that attitude? Why don't we have the attitude of trying to help them?

    For instance, Jim recently jumped on me for arguing that wages are determined by the market. He said that we as Christians should be willing to pay people a decent living salary. (I incidentally agreed with that principle, but maintain that "decent living salary" is determined by the market.) Now, Jim seems to be arguing that we should only pay Americans a decent living salary and those in other parts of the world should be left in poverty so Americans can live fat and happy. That doesn't make sense ... and I am not trying to start an argument with Jim about it. It just seems inconsistent.

    I think that when jobs overseas go up, our exports increase because people overseas can afford American products. Right now, you can export American goods to places where no one can buy them becuase they don't make enough money.

    We live in a global economy where you can ship stuff around the world overnight. What used to be the trade dynamics between, say, Virginia and New York, is now the trade dynamic between Brazil and Canada, or Japan and the US. The American company and worker have to survive on better quality, not lack of competition. The consumer loses when competition is cut. In a sports analogy, a team that goes undefeated is not necessarily better than a team that goes winless. It depends on the quality of the competition. If you want to get better, you have to compete. American has always shown the ability to do better than every other nation in the world. This will be no exception.
     
  17. KenH

    KenH
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Likes Received:
    0
    A Balanced View of Tariffs
    by Mark Moore
    Chairman, Arkansas Constitution Party

    Some people want to impose protectionist tariffs whenever an American industry is threatened by foreign competition. Other people believe that tariffs are never morally justifiable. As usual, these extremes miss the standard of justice, and therefore in the long run neither position is the best governmental and social policy.

    Let us begin with the assumption that free market transactions between willing individuals are a good thing. This is the position of those that say tariffs are never justified. Tariffs represent the government favoring some groups of manufacturers and workers over the consumer.

    Tariffs force the consumer to pay a higher price for a good than they otherwise would. This favoritism by the government toward some groups at the expense of others would represent an injustice. And since those consumers would have less to spend on other goods, it could well be that as many jobs are lost as get "protected" by the tariff.

    I agree with the assumption that free market transactions between willing individuals are a good thing, but must also point out that many transactions that seem to be "free market" choices actually are not. Many have quite a bit of cost shifting involved. Cost shifting is when "A" pays hidden costs in a transaction between "B" and "C". For example, if I buy a stolen stereo both myself and the thief may be very satisfied by our transaction, but the real owner of the stereo might be very unsatisfied. When cost shifting is involved, the transaction is not a pure free market transaction. Suboptimal decisions will be made simply because true costs are not accounted for when the trading parties make the exchange.

    Sanctions, including the mild sanction of tariffs, for transactions that involve significant cost shifting are therefore morally justifiable. What is morally right, though often costly in the short term, is almost always both right and beneficial in the long term.

    What are some common circumstances in which cost shifting occurs? Currency manipulation would be a major example. Right now the government of China does not float its currency. The medium of exchange between our two economies is not accountable to the free market, and therefore cost shifting occurs. Because of this, pure free trade with the managed economy of this communist giant is impossible whether we put tariffs on them or not.

    Consider, they deliberately keep their currency undervalued relative to the dollar. That means their industries acquire raw materials from the farmers and miners and pay for it in undervalued currency. They then pay their workers in undervalued currency to manufacture a consumer item. This allows them to undersell U.S. competitors who must pay their suppliers and workers in dollars- money whose value is subject to free market forces. The Chi-com industries pay everyone in undervalued money and get overvalued dollars in exchange. One day it will all collapse of course. Until it does it represents a conspiracy between the Communist rulers of China and their manufacturing class to pay their workers peanuts (through currency manipulation) and use these artificially lowered costs to takeover American markets.

    In a situation like that, a tariff that was designed to counter their currency manipulation would make a transaction with them closer to a pure free market one than would a policy of no tariffs. The tariffs would be designed to erase the phony advantage of currency manipulation, and make the transaction closer to a real free market one. This would remove the incentive for the ruling class of these countries to manipulate their currencies, resulting in freer trade for everyone.

    Another common example would be a country that did not have adequate environmental and/or worker safety laws. Such a country could have manufacturers which pollute the air and water, causing serious birth defects in the population. American competitors who have installed costly pollution control equipment to reduce the environmental impact of their operations could not compete, but not because the foreign company was more efficient. Instead, the foreign company has been allowed to shift costs unto the unfortunate populace. The costs of these tragedies would not be measured when their goods were exported to consumers in the United States- unless the U.S. erects tariffs on their goods. This would be an incentive for other countries to enact more equitable environmental and worker safety laws.

    Notice that in none of these cases are American workers uncompetitive simply because they are overpaid or underproductive. The only just use of tariffs is their use as a counterweight to cost shifting by the other economy. That means they must be proportional to the amount of cost shifting that occurs, and eliminated once the cost shifting ends. In our current world, and the likely world of the near future, they are a viable, potent, and just remedy to the cost shifting that corrupts free market transactions.
     
  18. church mouse guy

    church mouse guy
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 23, 2002
    Messages:
    10,988
    Likes Received:
    79
    One thing that can help hold jobs here is tort reform and sweeping away of excessive federal regulations dealing with employment, hiring and firing, and the liability of the employer in cases involving employees. For example, women have filed a class-action lawsuit against Wal-Mart for failure to promote them. Such business as who is promoted and who is not promoted should be outside the realm of the federal government.
     
  19. billwald

    billwald
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2000
    Messages:
    11,414
    Likes Received:
    0
    If the working class could not buy Chinese stuff at Walmart, who would benefit the most? The working class or the merchant class?
     
  20. Craigbythesea

    Craigbythesea
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    5,500
    Likes Received:
    20
    In the long run it would benefit the working class. I am not a member of that class, and I would not benefit financially (indeed, it would cost me a lot of money), but I am more than willing to make the sacrifice so that more Americans can have good paying jobs and a good benefits package. I am also willing to pay much higher taxes so that all Americans can be guaranteed good health care, but I suppose that makes me the devil himself. :rolleyes:
     

Share This Page

Loading...