I don't like Pat Buchanan much but the squirrel does occassionally find a nut.....


"(T)he Census Bureau data show that U.S. export growth was phenomenal in 2006, increasing by 14.5 percent. ... Exports to Europe increased by 15.2 percent and to China by nearly 32 percent. The growth in exports to Japan was a slower 7.5 percent, but it grew. Since 2001, U.S. exports have increased by more than 42 percent."

Wow. Phenomenal indeed. And it does sound like we are cleaning those foreigners' clocks. But Ikenson ignored the other side of the ledger.

That the U.S. trade deficit in 2006 rose to an all-time record of $764 billion. That the deficit in goods hit $836 billion. That the deficit with China rose 15 percent, from $203 billion in 2005 to $233 billion in 2006, the largest trade deficit ever recorded between two nations. That the deficit with Japan rose to $88 billion, the largest ever between us.

Under Bush, the U.S. trade deficit has set five straight world records, as has the U.S. trade deficit in autos, parts and trucks. So reports Charles MacMillion of MBG Services, who has for years tracked the decline and fall of American manufacturing.

For manufactured goods, our trade deficit rose to $536 billion, from $504 billion. In Bush's six years, America has run a total trade deficit of $2.6 trillion in manufactured goods, as 3 million U.S. manufacturing jobs have disappeared and wages in that sector have fallen 3 percent in three years.

Query to Ikenson: If these numbers represent a successful trade policy, what would a failed trade policy look like?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/uc/20070227/cm_uc_crpbux/op_331375


At some point, we need to start protecting American jobs. Free trade only works if the playing field is level. It isn't level. We're getting pummeled.

At some point, we need to start protecting American jobs. Free trade only works if the playing field is level. It isn't level. We're getting pummeled.

Protectionism reduces wealth, this is a historical and economic fact.

Protectionism does not solve the fundamental reasons why a countries industry is inefficient and non-competative.

The American Imperium is build upon 'US$ globalisation/free trade', this is where the wealth comes from to pay for the expensive military.

Protectionism reduces wealth, this is a historical and economic fact.

Protectionism does not solve the fundamental reasons why a countries industry is inefficient and non-competative.

The American Imperium is build upon 'US$ globalisation/free trade', this is where the wealth comes from to pay for the expensive military.

And here I thought the "American Imperium" was built on the fact that after WWII we were the only one's that had buildings that were not burning, that we were the only country that could loan money, and create its own wealth. The things you learn...

And here I thought the "American Imperium" was built on the fact that after WWII we were the only one's that had buildings that were not burning, that we were the only country that could loan money, and create its own wealth. The things you learn...

Semanitics.....

Fact is that the 'global economy' is the source of wealth that pays for the US military, and the US military is the source of order which allows the 'global economy' to operate.

It was not much different with the Roman Empire.

(Had to get that reference to antiquity in I know TMB will hate it :))

Semanitics.....

Fact is that the 'global economy' is the source of wealth that pays for the US military, and the US military is the source of order which allows the 'global economy' to operate.

It was not much different with the Roman Empire.

(Had to get that reference to antiquity in I know TMB will hate it :))

No, it is a point of history, you suggested something different than what you now assert. There is a difference about "what" built it and what may now be propping it up. You remind me of those students that come to complain about their grades with the line..."but that is what I meant to write." To which the professor responds..."then you should have written that, it would have made a better paper if you had."

As for the Roman Empire reference, one can only sit back and admire at the assumption at least that you did read a book.

No, it is a point of history, you suggested something different than what you now assert.

I think that is a matter of interpretation, but lets not become pedants...


As for the Roman Empire reference, one can only sit back and admire at the assumption at least that you did read a book.

LOL

It was not much different with the Roman Empire.

We all know how that worked out.

We all know how that worked out.

Yes and all other Empires...................

I think that is a matter of interpretation, but lets not become pedants...



LOL

Isn't that what you have accused me of being before? It seems everytime you are upset that you leave unclear, or have discrepancies in your messages on the internets that you resort to the "you must be one of 'dem book lernin' fellers."

Try a new schtick...and pick up that second book that might be calling your name.
Try the Persians...we would all love to know how often you could work them into threads.

Isn't that what you have accused me of being before? It seems everytime you are upset that you leave unclear, or have discrepancies in your messages on the internets that you resort to the "you must be one of 'dem book lernin' fellers."

Try a new schtick...and pick up that second book that might be calling your name.
Try the Persians...we would all love to know how often you could work them into threads.
...I love 'em.

Try a new schtick...and pick up that second book that might be calling your name.
.

Book Nazi!
:)

At some point, we need to start protecting American jobs. Free trade only works if the playing field is level. It isn't level. We're getting pummeled.

We could lower wages in the US to be competitive? Obviously I'm joking, but that is the real issue, isn't it....the disparity in wages.

In an open market, the only way you can equalize the trade is to continually innovate.....you can't compete on wage rates.

What American Jobs need to be protected?....we have the lowest unemployment rate we have ever had....or at least a very healthy one.

More cheaper goods are coming into America because we are a consuming society with great wealth.......why is that bad?

Tell me what the real problem is?

Len

Tell me what the real problem is?



Servicing an empire with debt is not sustainable.

The history of the Soviet Unions shows what happens if you cannot afford your military.

since Ronny Raygun we went from the largest importer of resources and largest exporter
of finished goods to the largest exporter of resources and the largest importer of finished goods. Those definitions used to be how you told a first world nation from a banana republic. We are allowing our country to be strip mined and forest felled so we can have the it sold back to us in a finished state. WHo does this build wealth for?

We can't compete against foreign robber barons with pennies a day labor and no health and environmental standards. Besides losing jobs and entire industries we are running a massive trade deficit. So for who is this building wealth? The Walton family?

since Ronny Raygun we went from the largest importer of resources and largest exporter
of finished goods to the largest exporter of resources and the largest importer of finished goods. Those definitions used to be how you told a first world nation from a banana republic. We are allowing our country to be strip mined and forest felled so we can have the it sold back to us in a finished state. WHo does this build wealth for?

We can't compete against foreign robber barons with pennies a day labor and no health and environmental standards. Besides losing jobs and entire industries we are running a massive trade deficit. So for who is this building wealth? The Walton family?

where is this "end of the world as we know it" manifesting itself?

-it's not showing up in unemployment
-it's not showing up in an economic slowdown


What do you suggest as a solution to this "problem"?

The world has changed dramaticially since the 80's.....the old definitions don't apply....it is a world economy and because we have evelved to such a fluid workforce, we have been nimble enough to thrive in it, and are positioned well to capitalize on it. The only thing that will derail it IMO, is continued deficit spending coupled with ever decreasing birth rates.

Much todo about nothing IMO.

Len

are part of deficit spending. they add into the equation. so we sell our resources (cheap) to somebody who uses near slave labor with no safety or environmental regs to make products they sell back to us cheaply and take the profits they make to buy up our debt both personal and national. we lose our manufacturing backbone and adapt to a service economy and even some of those jobs are being replaced by cheaper labor. (Mexican trucking companies will soon be delivering in the NE). So more middle income positions dwindle. The lumber mills close but we fell trees at an increased rate. The Foundries close but mining increases. (neither of which increases the workforce)

yeah, yeah it's a new world. yeah new math. I remember hearing that in the 90's when people said the ole PE ratios didn't matter anymore with stock investing. We all know how that worked out.

It's not showing up in unemployment or economic activity. So who exactly is getting hurt?

What is your solution?

As to the environmental issues......that is a seperate topic....this one was about the impact of trade defecits.

Frankly, I don't see it as anything but the world seeking equilibrium. When the US was first established, we created trade imbalances with Europe in our favor...look how that worked out. We are not "entitled" to continue to consume more than anyone else and have higher wealth.

You think we have problems now, envision a world where we cut back on our consumption and our entire eceonomy tanks.

Or maybe one where we put protectionist trade policies in place and our inflation rate goes crazy because we can't buy those cheaper goods and have to pay higher prices for US made goods.

You think it's such a problem, then propose a solution.

Len

are part of deficit spending. they add into the equation. so we sell our resources (cheap) to somebody who uses near slave labor with no safety or environmental regs to make products they sell back to us cheaply and take the profits they make to buy up our debt both personal and national.

This only works so long as the US$ is highly valued, and it is only highly valued because it is backed by physical oil, this is the way the US is able to tax the world and pay for its military.

Anyone who thinks consumption funded by debt is sustainable is delusional, history is full of empires that ran out of cash.

I'd tariff the snot out of anything that was made in a place that didn't meet certain environmental, occupational safety, worker rights, etc... standards. would make our goods more competitive, would force them to up their standards so we'd have a cleaner planet and if their workers were making a tad more money then we'd have another consumer class abroad. Foreign Robber BArons don't do too much for our goods and services economy other than providing the $$ to sustain it. I don't believe their systems would collapse with such a change, ours didn't.

speaking of employment and inflation did you see the WSJ article about it? The ole (I think it was called the Phillips Curve) seems to no longer function. That they used to have a direct correlation to employment levels and inflation but it no longer applies. Gee it worked for about 30 years 1950-1980 and then it started slipping. What happened in 1980, oh yeah the birth of the new America. Union busting, world economy, job and manufacturing exportation. Len there's been a slow class war going on. Don't be suprised when it spreads up the middle income chain (it already has with tech jobs heading to India)

At some point, we need to start protecting American jobs. Free trade only works if the playing field is level. It isn't level. We're getting pummeled.

You dont understand economices. Protectionism does not lead to a strong economy, contrary to most peoples thinking.

You do not become better, strong, wealthier by limited compition in the marketplace.

The ONLY person that pays for protecting the market is the end consumer. You pay more for goods then a free market allows.

Our countries wealth has increased due to international trade, so have all the countries that engage in international trade. The G8 are the G8 for a reason. They trade and trade decreases violence amoungst trading partners and increases wealth.

YOu need to study International Marketing before you go any further with your misguided rant.

Servicing an empire with debt is not sustainable.

The history of the Soviet Unions shows what happens if you cannot afford your military.


Actually the ONLY thing the USSR showed us is that a closed market doesnt work.

You dont understand economices. Protectionism does not lead to a strong economy, contrary to most peoples thinking.

You do not become better, strong, wealthier by limited compition in the marketplace.It seems to be working out pretty well for China.

I am all in favor of free trade, assuming that it goes both ways. In the case if China it definitely does not.

where is this "end of the world as we know it" manifesting itself?

-it's not showing up in unemployment
-it's not showing up in an economic slowdown


What do you suggest as a solution to this "problem"?

The world has changed dramaticially since the 80's.....the old definitions don't apply....it is a world economy and because we have evelved to such a fluid workforce, we have been nimble enough to thrive in it, and are positioned well to capitalize on it. The only thing that will derail it IMO, is continued deficit spending coupled with ever decreasing birth rates.

Much todo about nothing IMO.

Len


I go back to the termite analogy.... we may be ok now but our foundation is being eaten away.

We once were a manufacturing economy. We evolved into a service economy. Now we outsource both. What's next? Do we all go back to being farmers? Do we evolve into a Heinlenesque military society and become the world's police force? Do we become a society of Patricians to rule the roost?


What value will America continue to add?

You dont understand economices. Protectionism does not lead to a strong economy, contrary to most peoples thinking.

You do not become better, strong, wealthier by limited compition in the marketplace.

The ONLY person that pays for protecting the market is the end consumer. You pay more for goods then a free market allows.

Our countries wealth has increased due to international trade, so have all the countries that engage in international trade. The G8 are the G8 for a reason. They trade and trade decreases violence amoungst trading partners and increases wealth.

YOu need to study International Marketing before you go any further with your misguided rant.



Prove it.

It seems to be working out pretty well for China.

I am all in favor of free trade, assuming that it goes both ways. In the case if China it definitely does not.

Actually, US based business are opening up shop in China. The greatest hinderance to doing business in China is the fact there is little wealth to sell them expensive products.

Things will swing, China is become more and more a free market economy. They are simply undoing 100's of years of conditioning.

I'd tariff the snot out of anything that was made in a place that didn't meet certain environmental, occupational safety, worker rights, etc... standards. would make our goods more competitive, would force them to up their standards so we'd have a cleaner planet and if their workers were making a tad more money then we'd have another consumer class abroad. Foreign Robber BArons don't do too much for our goods and services economy other than providing the $$ to sustain it. I don't believe their systems would collapse with such a change, ours didn't.

speaking of employment and inflation did you see the WSJ article about it? The ole (I think it was called the Phillips Curve) seems to no longer function. That they used to have a direct correlation to employment levels and inflation but it no longer applies. Gee it worked for about 30 years 1950-1980 and then it started slipping. What happened in 1980, oh yeah the birth of the new America. Union busting, world economy, job and manufacturing exportation. Len there's been a slow class war going on. Don't be suprised when it spreads up the middle income chain (it already has with tech jobs heading to India)

And when they tariff in response we have a trade war which usually doesn't help anyone.

I don't disagree that there are fundamental changes going on in the economic structure of the US. What I disagree on is the cause and the solution. The cause, as I see it, is both the change in the tax structure, and the fact that the world is transforming from a local economy to a global economy at the same time countries like Russia & China are embracing capitalism. This creates wage imbalances as high labor availability/low cost developing economies accelerate to conumer economies.....and their wages increase....what I refer to as equilibrium. This has been going on since the dawn of time, the difference now is the scale....and the pace. Economies like ours need to change and adapt rapidly. Hence the fluid job force.

Change is hard and imperfect, but the US has done a better job than many countries at staying agile. When the change is done, wages will equalize globally and then innovation will be the trump card. We just have to wheather the change...and it will be painful.

Put tariffs on all those cheap goods that the lower and middle classes buy and you would accelerate their demise.

Trade can be used as a Pawn to change environmental and other regulatory behavior, but it has to be used judisiously......

China is a hugh underemployed population base whose individual wealth is rising rapidly....as it rises, they will go from low wage production to medium wage consumption, it's already begun in many of the larger cities.....our challange is to end up a supplier or at worst an integrator of goods and services.

Everyone seems to want it the way it was.....and want to preserve what we have......good luck with that.....in 30 years the largest economy on earth will be China, just based on pure population. We need to adapt or die.

len

What value will America continue to add?

The economy is changing and thats perfectly alright. Just like people were affriad of change when machines started taking over low skilled jobs we didnt have a failing ecnomy. Different jobs were created, ones that required skills that couldnt be filled by outsourced jobs.

Google, Microsoft, Apple and the telecommunications industry are prime examples of US businesses that will thrive in years to come. No other country is as inovative as we are.

I go back to the termite analogy.... we may be ok now but our foundation is being eaten away.

We once were a manufacturing economy. We evolved into a service economy. Now we outsource both. What's next? Do we all go back to being farmers? Do we evolve into a Heinlenesque military society and become the world's police force? Do we become a society of Patricians to rule the roost?


What value will America continue to add?

You can't ignore the emergence of China as a large low cost labor force (that BTW is converting to a very large cunsumer society)....it's not going to go away.

You can't stop the conversion of the economiy from a local to a global economy without imperiling your own economy.

You can't change the pace.

So what do you propose?

Len

Prove it.

Pick up a darn book and teach yourself on world trade. In this case you are truly coming off as uneducated/uninformed as to the benifits on world trade.

I'm not going to type you economic fundimentals and IM basics. If you care to learn fire 'benifits of free trade' into google and start reading.

You have much to learn.

Thankful our country isn't following this narrow minded approach of yours. Protectionism doesnt help anyone. It promotes bad business.

Protectionism doesnt help anyone.

Uh huh. Tell that to the Americans who are unemployed because their jobs were offshored or because it's a buck cheaper per widget to buy a cheap Chinese knockoff of the product they used to manufacture. Yeah, screw those worthless POSes... that class of people are our throwaways to begin with.


I bet you're for immigration restrictions though.

Uh huh. Tell that to the Americans who are unemployed because their jobs were offshored or because it's a buck cheaper per widget to buy a cheap Chinese knockoff of the product they used to manufacture. Yeah, screw those worthless POSes... that class of people are our throwaways to begin with.


I bet you're for immigration restrictions though.

You dont have a leg to stand on. ~4.5% unemployement doesn't support your claims to high unemployement.

If you want to see how protectionism/socialist views hurt an ecnomy look to europe were 8-12% unemployment is common.

Further more the people that lose their jobs to low-skilled outsourcing have the best chance here in American to get improved skills training and command a higher wage.

Lets stick to one topic at a time KenB.

You can't ignore the emergence of China as a large low cost labor force (that BTW is converting to a very large cunsumer society)....it's not going to go away.

You can't stop the conversion of the economiy from a local to a global economy without imperiling your own economy.

You can't change the pace.

So what do you propose?

Len

Leveling the playing field by removing incentives for American companies to offshore. Pressure trade partners to bring wages more in line with ours.

There is no reason that America can not be self-sufficient. In fact, it's our only way of ever stay on top. We're losing that. I'm not anti-trade nor am I anti-free trade. I'm against losing the ability to support ourselves and what we're doing now is endangering us of being able to do that.

Further more the people that lose their jobs to low-skilled outsourcing have the best chance here in American to get improved skills training and command a higher wage.
Really? Doing what? Servicing the equipment they used to manufacture? Sorry, that's been offshored or the equipment is now a throwaway item. How many TV repairmen jobs are out there now? Maybe they could hop into the IT field... write code maybe? Nope, we do that in India now (that's a whole other problem in and of itself). Semiconductor fab? Nope. Asia. Steel? Nope. Cars? Less than half made here now and declining. How about telemarketing? Nope, sorry... we offshore that too. Housing? Not really... too cyclical and declining right now. Gardener/janitor/maid? Nope, we import those from Mexico for cheap.

There's a shortage of doctors though. Maybe Uncle Sam can pickup the tab for the 12 years of college to train all those folks. We could probably use more prison guards and we can always use some canon fodder. There's a couple ideas. Or, maybe they can get a couple jobs flipping burgers to eek out a living at or below the poverty level. We could always use better people working at Mickey D's.

Oh, and the 4.5% unemployment rate is BS. There are a lot of people that have fallen off the books because they've been unemployed so long.

Really? Doing what? Servicing the equipment they used to manufacture? Sorry, that's been offshored or the equipment is now a throwaway item. How many TV repairmen jobs are out there now? Maybe they could hop into the IT field... write code maybe? Nope, we do that in India now (that's a whole other problem in and of itself). Semiconductor fab? Nope. Asia. Steel? Nope. Cars? Less than half made here now and declining. How about telemarketing? Nope, sorry... we offshore that too. Housing? Not really... too cyclical and declining right now. Gardener/janitor/maid? Nope, we import those from Mexico for cheap.

There's a shortage of doctors though. Maybe Uncle Sam can pickup the tab for the 12 years of college to train all those folks. We could probably use more prison guards and we can always use some canon fodder. There's a couple ideas. Or, maybe they can get a couple jobs flipping burgers to eek out a living at or below the poverty level. We could always use better people working at Mickey D's.

Oh, and the 4.5% unemployment rate is BS. There are a lot of people that have fallen off the books because they've been unemployed so long.

You're bitter and dont understand the things you speak of. Protectionism costs society, yes it will 'protect' certain industries but EVERYONE pays for that.

It's best to let the free market do as it should.

BTW even if you think the way we calculate unemployement is BS it's a standard, and we're of the lowest. Must be doing something right.

Get a clue....

You're bitter and dont understand the things you speak of. Protectionism costs society, yes it will 'protect' certain industries but EVERYONE pays for that.

It's best to let the free market do as it should.

BTW even if you think the way we calculate unemployement is BS it's a standard, and we're of the lowest. Must be doing something right.

Get a clue....


Right, so being a standard makes it accurate. I see. Other nations keep track of everyone. We don't. Ever think it may be that we're doing something wrong?

Right, so being a standard makes it accurate. I see. Other nations keep track of everyone. We don't. Ever think it may be that we're doing something wrong?

Well I know Canada messures things the same way we do, so I'm not sure 'which' country you're comparing us to. However in the g8 I am pretty confident unemployement is measured teh same way.

However, I wouldnt mess with the system, cause the system works. We're the strongest ecnomy in the world. Wealthiest country in the world. Most powerful country in the world.

So no I dont think we;re doing anything wrong.

People in this country have options and freedoms to how they live their lives. I wouldnt change it for the world.


I thought I should add. The great thing about free trade is, the rich get richer. The nations who trade the most have the strongest ecnomies and the greatest wealth. International trade is something in the area of 70-80% between the G8

You
Go travel and live in other countries, you'll see the difference with some prospective.

Leveling the playing field by removing incentives for American companies to offshore. Pressure trade partners to bring wages more in line with ours.

There is no reason that America can not be self-sufficient. In fact, it's our only way of ever stay on top. We're losing that. I'm not anti-trade nor am I anti-free trade. I'm against losing the ability to support ourselves and what we're doing now is endangering us of being able to do that.

since we got ecnomic strength and a strong economy, lets fight to keep every one else from acheiving the same?

If american companies don't go offshore, some offshore company will fill that demand, which will further weaken the US.

What do you propose to do when those trading partners don't succumb to our selfish pressure?

Len

since we got ecnomic strength and a strong economy, lets fight to keep every one else from acheiving the same?

If american companies don't go offshore, some offshore company will fill that demand, which will further weaken the US.

What do you propose to do when those trading partners don't succumb to our selfish pressure?

Len


If the objective of free trade is to lower the median American wage while increasing the wealth of the top 5%, it has been very effective thus far. Why must the economic growth of the rest of the world be at the expense of the average American worker? Why can we not put protections in place that allow for a gradual transition?


What makes for a weaker nation: one that produces nothing and services nothing or one that is self sufficient?

If the objective of free trade is to lower the median American wage while increasing the wealth of the top 5%, it has been very effective thus far. Why must the economic growth of the rest of the world be at the expense of the average American worker? Why can we not put protections in place that allow for a gradual transition?

this is not caused by free trade but rather by the inequities of our tax system.

What makes for a weaker nation: one that produces nothing and services nothing or one that is self sufficient?

It's not an all or nothing proposition........if 0 is one that produces and services nothing & 10 is self sufficient, we are still an 8. IMO.....it's no where near as bad as you claim. what is causing mor loss of manufacturing jobs than free trade is increases in productivity at plants caused by automation........this has been predicted for years, but it is happening. The American workforce does more with less than any workforce in the world.

This world equalization is going to happen, either we are flexible enough to understand that we can no longer be 20% of the world population consuming 50% of it's resources and have 50% of it's wealth and work to raise the standard elsewhere or elsewhere will eventually overrun us. As I said preciously, it's a world economy.

Len

If the objective of free trade is to lower the median American wage while increasing the wealth of the top 5%, it has been very effective thus far. Why must the economic growth of the rest of the world be at the expense of the average American worker? Why can we not put protections in place that allow for a gradual transition?


What makes for a weaker nation: one that produces nothing and services nothing or one that is self sufficient?

First of. We dont produce NOTHING. Seconly being self sufficient is a great ideal but not always possible nor desirable.

Our balance of trade my be off but it's been like this for years.

Where being a manufactering nation was great, because it was innovative, things have changed. Making products have become simplier as technology has increased. What we produce is something few nations can match. We product innovations backed by education, money, resources, high productivity and capacity.

I'm affriad you just dont get it. You make claims that aren't backed by any solid facts.

Unemployement is low
Productivity is high
Economy is stronger then the rest of the world

KenB I get the impression you, or someone close to you may have just lost their job to China; maybe in the auto layoffs coming. However this is no reason to think the system has failed them/you. You or they can get training to improve your skills and move into a new sector of work. Production is no longer our strong point. Ideas and innovation are. Those who resist change become the first victoms of it.

Get off the pitty wagon 'oh poor American, cheap products coming in from Asian' and give yourself a compeititive edge. Our training is many years ahead of China's and if we keep it that way China will, for the short term 50-60 years (likely your lifetime) be only able to produce cheap goods.

have far more restrictive import duties.

and folks sorry yer all high.

goods are made cheaper overseas not because of technology (yes that helps a bit) but because of exploitable labor sources and no regulations.

make all foreign companies come up to our standards and let's see if they can make a dozen socks for &1.99

KenB I get the impression you, or someone close to you may have just lost their job to China; maybe in the auto layoffs coming. However this is no reason to think the system has failed them/you. You or they can get training to improve your skills and move into a new sector of work. Production is no longer our strong point. Ideas and innovation are. Those who resist change become the first victoms of it.

Actually, no. It's just that I'm not a greedy f* and I actually give a damn about my fellow Americans.

you can trace this trending right back to Raygun. It also marks the time when US Employment Stats stopped having their effect on inflation. I know alot of programmers who thought their positions were safe a decade ago. You know, they were college educated professionals.

and yes it has only really benefitted the top 2-5%.

I just want to use tariffs to aid the environment and worker safety.

US companies can't compete with sweatshops and toxic rivers

Actually, no. It's just that I'm not a greedy f* and I actually give a damn about my fellow Americans.

Then the best thing you can do is encourage people you know to keep improving their skill sets and not get caught in the trap of staying with one company longer then they should.

Change is a good thing, America is changing and it's for the better.

However if everyone is a millionaire, no one is a millionaire.

I truly believe that NO American living here has anyone to blame but him/herself for not getting where they want to go in life. There is so much opportunity here to be tapped. If people aren't making enough money, enjoying their job or don't have the general life they want; no government laws are going to make that better for them. They have to be willing to do it themselves.

Now of course a simple answer to all of this is unionize, well thats killing Ford and GM right now as they cannot pay the huge retirement deals they have. Look at Europe where it's a social state, people are unhappy, economy is weak and high unemployement.

Lets look at the car industry again. If GM makes a poorer car then Honda because they know the Honda comes in at a higher cost because of the taxes imposed on import they are less motiviated to improve. This is happening right now.

More to the auto point, Honda has opened up plants in North America, created many well paid jobs, in manufactering. However it's our companies outsourcing to China. Go figure.

Look to the people to change things, not to have government pass laws that will make things 'better' it often has questionable outcomes.

can't pay out the retirement deals because they mismanaged/squandered the funds.
If those companies are in such dire straights why do their CEO salaries keep skyrocketing? Auto Industry is a classic example of what is wrong in American economics right now.
Honda, etc... is a prime example. Kicking our butt in quality, building it here, what does that tell us? You CAN do it here, the problem doesn't lie with the guy who builds the car, it lies at the top of the chain. So why are oour execs making exponentially more $ than Japanese or German ones who are kicking their butt?

Honda built factories here to AVOID the tariffs so wow, tariff equaled
Jobs for Americans

thanx

Honda built factories here to AVOID the tariffs so wow, tariff equaled
Jobs for Americans

thanx


Not that simple. We gave them HUGE tax incentives to build the plants here.

There is nothing wrong with our economy, only the consumer who is spending themselves into debt.

Not that simple. We gave them HUGE tax incentives to build the plants here.

There is nothing wrong with our economy, only the consumer who is spending themselves into debt.

no tariff and tax incentive
end result is

American Workers

making cars that sell. workers doing well, Honda making profit

why are they thriving and GM and Ford are not?

superior management working at about 1/10th the payscale

Prove it.

Although economists certainly aren't unanimous, I don't think any would argue that protectionism causes as many problems as it solves. You may protect higher paying jobs, but you also drive up prices. So those that work in factories, for instance, will make more than they would if the factory closed but they'll also pay more for goods because prices are driven up by the tariffs.

It also goes against the theory of comparitive advantage. Consider if it costs Colombia 10 dollars to produce a brick of coffee and 50 dollars to produce a bushel of corn. The U.S. must pay 15 dollars to produce a brick of coffee but 30 dollars for a bushel of corn. It benefits both countries if the U.S. produces only corn and Colombia produces only coffee then they trade. In the end, both countries get what they want for less money.

Wikipedia has more examples: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparative_advantage

Tariffs make this problematic. If the U.S. creates tariffs on imported coffee so it costs the same as U.S. coffee, then we drive down demand for corn exports in addition to driving down demand for coffee imports.

The problem in the U.S. right now is that we don't produce enough things that other countries want compared to how much we want to consume. I don't see how tariffs will help that very much considering the size of the problem. I'm going to talk about one possible way to help in response to one of Len's posts.

we're talking finished steel products, TVs, computers, finished wood products, automobiles, appliances, textiles......

but the relationship between labor costs and inflation (which you mentiion) used to be tied closely together. I think it was called the phillips curve. Since we started busting unions and eliminating their bargaining power the curve no longer applies. was accurate for decades and has lost it's functionality for predicting such for the last 25 years which just so happens to coincide with Reagans Presidency and the beginning of the war on the middle class

There is nothing wrong with our economy, only the consumer who is spending themselves into debt.


Do you mean consumers or the government?

You're bitter and dont understand the things you speak of. Protectionism costs society, yes it will 'protect' certain industries but EVERYONE pays for that.

It's best to let the free market do as it should.

BTW even if you think the way we calculate unemployement is BS it's a standard, and we're of the lowest. Must be doing something right.

Get a clue....

Mt. Biker,

Your absolute faith in the free market system is foolish and naive at best.

Answer this question... Is the entire US economy purely a free market system?

If not, why not?

Answer these questions, and maybe, just maybe you'll learn something about the real world.

can't pay out the retirement deals because they mismanaged/squandered the funds.


What happened is that these deals with the unions for both super rich Pensions and lifetime healthcare were done at a time when accounting regulations did not require current recognition of the costs....basicially they would have recorded the cost when incurred....many years in the future. Auto execs (& many others figured either they would grow enough to pay for them or they wouldn't be around). When the accounting regulations changed to require current recognition of the Present value of those future benefits, suddenly current management was required to deal with these enormous liabilities. Now we've reached a point where they actually have to pay on these promises and they can't afford them.

And to compare their ability to pay $40 million in salarys to a $40 billion Post retirement health care and pension liability (& that is for GM alone) is a little ludicrous don't you think? (I don't agree with GM's CEO pay structure, but even if they didn't pay him anything for the next what 100 years or so, they still couldn't pay their pension obligations.

It was poor decisions long in the past that are dooming some of the larger co's.

Len

What happened is that these deals with the unions for both super rich Pensions and lifetime healthcare were done at a time when accounting regulations did not require current recognition of the costs....basicially they would have recorded the cost when incurred....many years in the future. Auto execs (& many others figured either they would grow enough to pay for them or they wouldn't be around). When the accounting regulations changed to require current recognition of the Present value of those future benefits, suddenly current management was required to deal with these enormous liabilities. Now we've reached a point where they actually have to pay on these promises and they can't afford them.

And to compare their ability to pay $40 million in salarys to a $40 billion Post retirement health care and pension liability (& that is for GM alone) is a little ludicrous don't you think? (I don't agree with GM's CEO pay structure, but even if they didn't pay him anything for the next what 100 years or so, they still couldn't pay their pension obligations.

It was poor decisions long in the past that are dooming some of the larger co's.

Len

Can't argue with most of this and well sumarized.

Also, sadly, true.

The largest single cost per unit per vehicle for Ford, GM and Chrysler is retirement and health care costs for retired employees, not present but retired employees.

That is not a recipe for success and tariffs on foreign cars will not change it.

Mt. Biker,

Your absolute faith in the free market system is foolish and naive at best.

Answer this question... Is the entire US economy purely a free market system?

If not, why not?

Answer these questions, and maybe, just maybe you'll learn something about the real world.

I have heard this twisted logic from the left before:

"Our economy is not totally a free market. There is no such thing as a free market. Ergo the free markey does not work and should be replaced by a planned/collective economy."

Fact is that the regulated free market coupled with limited state provision of certain goods and services has proved highly successful at generating wealth in the western work. In fact it the most successful economic system in history. This economic system owes much more to the 'market' than to any 'planning'.

I have heard this twisted logic from the left before:

"Our economy is not totally a free market. There is no such thing as a free market. Ergo the free markey does not work and should be replaced by a planned/collective economy."

Fact is that the regulated free market coupled with limited state provision of certain goods and services has proved highly successful at generating wealth in the western work. In fact it the most successful economic system in history. This economic system owes much more to the 'market' than to any 'planning'.


Funny thing is that no one here is calling for "replacing the the free market". We're calling for exactly what you suggest, limited provisioning (protection) of certain goods and services (key industries).

Just like every other nation on the planet does.

If and when the free market utopia that you guys all dream about ever actually becomes reality, I'm all for dumping the protections.

Funny thing is that no one here is calling for "replacing the the free market". We're calling for exactly what you suggest, limited provisioning (protection) of certain goods and services (key industries).

Just like every other nation on the planet does.

If and when the free market utopia that you guys all dream about ever actually becomes reality, I'm all for dumping the protections.

KenB you need to wake up and smell the coffee. The kind of 'protectionism' you advocate was consigned to the dustbin of economic theory back in the 70's.

KenB you need to wake up and smell the coffee. The kind of 'protectionism' you advocate was consigned to the dustbin of economic theory back in the 70's.

...and America has been losing key manufacturing jobs to nations that protect their own ever since.

I'm all for a free market. Right now, the only market that is free is America's.

...and America has been losing key manufacturing jobs to nations that protect their own ever since.

I'm all for a free market. Right now, the only market that is free is America's.

A number of things drove our manufacturing base offshore, environmental regulations and labor played a major role. I'm for our government enforcing a free market or retalliating against those who insist on protectioniam but if one is realistic about that, we would all suffer for it short term. We have no real American mfg base anymore, nothing we use is totally "Made in America."

Right now, the only market that is free is America's.

Please elaborate.

...We have no real American mfg base anymore, nothing we use is totally "Made in America."

Well, we still manufacture a lot of bombs. What does it say about our society if the only things we manufacture are bombs?

it is to raise the competitions.
if everybody else played by our labor, worker safety and environmental regs we'd have a level playing field and thus less outsourcing. The by-product is a cleaner safer planet for everybody and a new consumer class worldwide

Please elaborate.

List nations:

- with fewer trade barriers (ie: more open)
- who provide more incentives for their domestic industries to setup shop offshore
- who provide more incentives for foreign companies to supplant their domestic competition
- who subsidize fewer domestic industries

List nations:

- with fewer trade barriers (ie: more open)
- who provide more incentives for their domestic industries to setup shop offshore
- who provide more incentives for foreign companies to supplant their domestic competition
- who subsidize fewer domestic industries

That is a lazy answer. I want real examples of how the US is facing 'unfair barriers' which are having macro effects on the US economy.

A number of things drove our manufacturing base offshore, environmental regulations and labor played a major role. I'm for our government enforcing a free market or retalliating against those who insist on protectioniam but if one is realistic about that, we would all suffer for it short term. We have no real American mfg base anymore, nothing we use is totally "Made in America."

I agree and don't mean to not acknowledge those factors in any way. I'm all for free trade if and when it is truely free trade.

and that was quite a cop-out Rydster.

you asked him to elaborate on what he meant by 'free' and he did.

According to him every other nation has far more trade protection and less pro-offshoring incentives than we do. please find him to be wrong or shut it.

So if America is doing less protection than the competition then the notion of 'free trade' is a myth.

and that was quite a cop-out Rydster.

you asked him to elaborate on what he meant by 'free' and he did.

According to him every other nation has far more trade protection and less pro-offshoring incentives than we do. please find him to be wrong or shut it.

So if America is doing less protection than the competition then the notion of 'free trade' is a myth.

KenB erected his straw man. Time for him to bring more than anacdote and conjecture to the table.

That is a lazy answer. I want real examples of how the US is facing 'unfair barriers' which are having macro effects on the US economy.

It's not a lazy answer. It lists some of the core issues which impact the US economy in regards to trade relationships.

For your perusal: http://www.ustr.gov/Document_Library/Reports_Publications/2004/2004_National_Trade_Estimate/2004_NTE_Report/Section_Index.html

It's not a lazy answer. It lists some of the core issues which impact the US economy in regards to trade relationships.

For your perusal: http://www.ustr.gov/Document_Library/Reports_Publications/2004/2004_National_Trade_Estimate/2004_NTE_Report/Section_Index.html

This spells it out:

http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/Protectionism.html

Basically KenB it come down to this: Protectionism = more expensive goods and services to the consumer = people are therefore poorer. End of argument, this is irrefutable in the long run.

Well, we still manufacture a lot of bombs. What does it say about our society if the only things we manufacture are bombs?

We should use more of them and keep this American industry healthy?

This spells it out:

http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/Protectionism.html

Basically KenB it come down to this: Protectionism = more expensive goods and services to the consumer = people are therefore poorer. End of argument, this is irrefutable in the long run.

You're wrong.

You're wrong.

Not according to the greatest minds in economics.

You're wrong.

You dont know what you're talking about....

A number of things drove our manufacturing base offshore, environmental regulations and labor played a major role. I'm for our government enforcing a free market or retalliating against those who insist on protectioniam but if one is realistic about that, we would all suffer for it short term. We have no real American mfg base anymore, nothing we use is totally "Made in America."

It seems that we have some manufacturing base in certain areas, no? Many of our "foreign" cars are made in the U.S. while many of our "domestic" cars are not. I don't have an online link, but this is from the April print edition of Consumer Reports (p. 95, the Selling It section):

While 90 percent of the content of a Toyota Sienna comes from the U.S. or Canada, only 65 percent of the all-American Mustang is North American. Both cars are assembled in the U.S. But the Ford Fusion and Chevy Avalanche? Made in Mexico.

It should make people realize that the whole concept of "made in the U.S.A." is somewhat antiquated in a world of global corporations that really have no national allegiance. Which is better? I would guess that a foreign company sending jobs here is much more desirable than a domestic company that sends jobs outside the U.S., but I really don't know the economic effects of each.

Not according to the greatest minds in economics.

Economists are too utilitarian. They don't take every issue into account.

Did the 'great minds' of economics predict or prevent the Great Depression?

Did the 'great minds' of economics predict or prevent the Great Depression?

Your point being?

Economists are too utilitarian. They don't take every issue into account.

Did the 'great minds' of economics predict or prevent the Great Depression?

Even if you understand something, it doesnt always mean you can stop it.

I'd say ecnomists understand things better then the liberals who push for things like 'protectionism' in the short sited view it will improve our standard of living.

This thread is over.

Protectionism lost.. lets move on.

Not according to the greatest minds in economics.

There's also consensus amongst the greatest minds in climatology regarding global warming and man's contribution to it, yet most here who support free trade continually ignore them.

I'd say ecnomists understand things better then the liberals who push for things like 'protectionism' in the short sited view it will improve our standard of living.

If lower median wages = higher standard of living, US trade policy has paid of BIG.

There's also consensus amongst the greatest minds in climatology regarding global warming and man's contribution to it, yet most here who support free trade continually ignore them.

Please show me where the connection between free trade and disbelief in global warming can be found.

Very weak agruement.

If lower median wages = higher standard of living, US trade policy has paid of BIG.

US trade policy has to reduce trade barriers. You really dont know what you're talking about, since first you're for protectionism and then you claim our move to free trade has actually increased our standard of living....

Whatever you're on, pass it this way.

Even if you understand something, it doesnt always mean you can stop it.

I'd say ecnomists understand things better then the liberals who push for things like 'protectionism' in the short sited view it will improve our standard of living.

This thread is over.

Protectionism lost.. lets move on.


See, this is what I love about you mt. biker. You act like you know what you're talkin' about, but when hard pressed all you do is attack and duck questions like these: http://forums.roadbikereview.com/showpost.php?p=959935&postcount=51

Typical economist...:rolleyes:

Economics doesn't do a good job addressing moral issues. Whether you like it or not, there are plenty of moral issues involved when dealing with issues like these.

Breaking everything down into a cost/benefit analysis doesn't take into consideration other issues...

Have you ever read Bentham or Mill? Is that the world you want to live in?

A little knowledge, and maturity, goes a long way...

Please show me where the connection between free trade and disbelief in global warming can be found.

Very weak agruement.



US trade policy has to reduce trade barriers. You really dont know what you're talking about, since first you're for protectionism and then you claim our move to free trade has actually increased our standard of living....

Whatever you're on, pass it this way.



Can you actually comprehend what you read? For I said nothing of the sort on either of the "points" you're attempting to make here.

See, this is what I love about you mt. biker. You act like you know what you're talkin' about, but when hard pressed all you do is attack and duck questions like these: http://forums.roadbikereview.com/showpost.php?p=959935&postcount=51

Typical economist...:rolleyes:

Economics doesn't do a good job addressing moral issues. Whether you like it or not, there are plenty of moral issues involved when dealing with issues like these.

Breaking everything down into a cost/benefit analysis doesn't take into consideration other issues...

Have you ever read Bentham or Mill? Is that the world you want to live in?

A little knowledge, and maturity, goes a long way...

I missed your question.

We dont live in a completely free market. Such a market would have NO government inputs/controls.

Can you actually comprehend what you read? For I said nothing of the sort on either of the "points" you're attempting to make here.

You suggested that the people here who support free trade, also ignore climate change. By saying such you are making a connection between their support of free trade and their disbelief in climate change/global warming. Since you obviously thinks this matters and helps in your debate, I would like to see evidence that this is supported outside the 10-15 people replying in this form.

You are talking to someone who conserves energy but supports free trade. I also dont think its unethical for there to be a class range in America. I realize that not everyone can make 50k/year. If this were to happen everything could go up, as in effect you've induced inflation but by another word... 'raising the standard of living' which doesnt come through forced waged hikes. It comes from an improved labor force that can COMMAND a higher wage.

I missed your question.

We dont live in a completely free market. Such a market would have NO government inputs/controls.

Ok, now answer the second part of the question... why not?

If the free market system is so efficient, why don't we leave everything up to the free market?

You suggested that the people here who support free trade, also ignore climate change. By saying such you are making a connection between their support of free trade and their disbelief in climate change/global warming. Since you obviously thinks this matters and helps in your debate, I would like to see evidence that this is supported outside the 10-15 people replying in this form.

You are talking to someone who conserves energy but supports free trade. I also dont think its unethical for there to be a class range in America. I realize that not everyone can make 50k/year. If this were to happen everything could go up, as in effect you've induced inflation but by another word... 'raising the standard of living' which doesnt come through forced waged hikes. It comes from an improved labor force that can COMMAND a higher wage.

the average person supporting these free trade arguments is a Conservative.
the method in which you are debating it is "the greatest minds in economics say so'
when confronted with the 'greatest minds in climatology' all in consensus about global warming, you poo-poo it.
that is pointing out how selectively you choose when to listen to 'expert opinion'.
heck expert opinion said Iraq would wind up a quagmire of sectarian warfare as well.

finally this has been the trend in US economics since Reagan. Now why don't you check you theory against the actual results (what the wearming crowd does). Do you see an expansion in the midle class or do you see a consolidation of wealth at the top levels?

so in the light of the end results I think your theory isn't holding water

in these matters, but you are going to have to convince me there was no mismanagement of existing funds.
don't even go into healthcare. If Corp America had a brain they would have had a single payer system years ago.

but back to mismaging, underfunding pensions. nice that W didn't change the corp bankruptcy laws

But the real shocker in the Frontline program was the revelation of how such bankruptcies are becoming an acceptable way for companies to get out of their pension obligations. Listen to what United's lead bankruptcy lawyer, James H.A. Sprayregen, told Frontline: "I would say that Chapter 11 has become somewhat of a more accepted strategic tool than just companies filing who are about to go out of business or something like that. As a result, there's more use of Chapter 11 now than probably 20 years ago."

So should you be worried if your pension is underfunded? Well, according to a recent report from Standard & Poor's, corporate America doesn't seem to be taking pension funding too seriously. From the 2005 "Pensions & Other Post Employment Benefits Report": "While corporate operating earnings post 16 consecutive quarters of double-digit growth, corporate pension plans remain in the red with minimal contributions continuing to be made. ... S&P 500 defined-benefit plans as a group were $140.4 billion underfunded for 2005."

According to the report, here are the 10 companies with the biggest deficits:

1. Exxon (NYSE: XOM)

2. Ford (NYSE: F)

3. Lockheed Martin (NYSE: LM)

4. General Motors (NYSE: GM)

5. Raytheon (Nasdaq: RTN)

6. Pfizer (NYSE: PFE)

7. DuPont (NYSE: DD)

8. Goodyear (NYSE: GT)

9. Procter & Gamble (NYSE: PG)

10. IBM (NYSE: IBM)

about Chevy Avalanches

nice cause you get some UAW / CAW insight

http://www.chevyavalanchefanclub.com/cafcna/index.php?PHPSESSID=908ae545e197f84124de62e40656f9 ac&topic=55381.msg857866

Ok, now answer the second part of the question... why not?

If the free market system is so efficient, why don't we leave everything up to the free market?

Unfortunately government likes to put its hands in things, and society often thinks government has their best interests at heart. People make mistakes and government isn't ever held responsible for it, they just vote in a new leader who claims to do mericals.

atpjunkie - I'm middle class and holding my own just fine, however I keep improving my skills. Secondly if you two want to see government where they shouldnt be, take a look into our long term debt associated to medicare and the likes. Currently America will be bankrupt if our healthcare system is not reformed. You might say 'well mt.biker we spend too much in Iraq to support medicare' well the fact is Iraq is the least of our financial concerns.

I support the right, I support being more responsible with energy, I support a free market (or as close to it), I support the reduction in social services and most importantly I support free trade. Free trade has allowed me to make my living and will support many business men/women who learn to use it for their advantage.

the average person supporting these free trade arguments is a Conservative.
the method in which you are debating it is "the greatest minds in economics say so'
when confronted with the 'greatest minds in climatology' all in consensus about global warming, you poo-poo it.
that is pointing out how selectively you choose when to listen to 'expert opinion'.
heck expert opinion said Iraq would wind up a quagmire of sectarian warfare as well.

finally this has been the trend in US economics since Reagan. Now why don't you check you theory against the actual results (what the wearming crowd does). Do you see an expansion in the midle class or do you see a consolidation of wealth at the top levels?

so in the light of the end results I think your theory isn't holding water


For a minute there I was beginning to think I wasn't speaking English or something. :)

I think Hoo has the median income stats under his thumb.... I know he's posted them a few times.

For a minute there I was beginning to think I wasn't speaking English or something. :)

I think Hoo has the median income stats under his thumb.... I know he's posted them a few times.

if you go to the ipcc website (the global warming site) they have overlapping charts showing predicted models (natural, anthropogenic and both) with an overlay of the actual readings. The 'natural warming' actual vs model doesn't line up, but the anthropogenic actual vs model is real close. When you line up all 3 you see the natural model filling in the little dips where the antrhopogenic is off. So you take 'man mad'e and then add the slight natural variations and it is pretty much dead on. (model vs actual).

So that is Scientists using real data to verify their theory.

So I keep waiting to see how this theory of the so-called 'free market' is benefitting ther majority of Americans when all the actual readings don't support it. In fact the data shows the opposite so much that decades old theories are no longer applicable.

A little knowledge, and maturity, goes a long way...

Not far enough to stop you sounding like a 5th grade philosophy student.

Unfortunately what you do not realise spyderman is that you cannot build an economic system on moral grounds. This is because an economic system has to work first and foremost, people need to eat and have a roof over their head, no amount of high minded sentiment and idealism can replace that. The history of Communism shows this.

Unfortunately government likes to put its hands in things, and society often thinks government has their best interests at heart. People make mistakes and government isn't ever held responsible for it, they just vote in a new leader who claims to do mericals.

...

This is pretty lame, even for you. :rolleyes:

Perhaps, just perhaps, the free market system isn't as efficient as people like you think.

Here's a couple more for ya...

Would the National Highway System have developed under a purely free market system?

How long would The Great Depression have lasted if it weren't for government intervention and The New Deal?

Expand your utilitarian mind a little beyond productivity curves. You can't solve a moral issue with a derivative.

Explore some Hobbes and Locke... Then add a little Bentham and Mill... And while you're at it Marx and Hegel...

This is pretty lame, even for you. :rolleyes:

Perhaps, just perhaps, the free market system isn't as efficient as people like you think.

Here's a couple more for ya...

Would the National Highway System have developed under a purely free market system?

How long would The Great Depression have lasted if it weren't for government intervention and The New Deal?

Expand your utilitarian mind a little beyond productivity curves. You can't solve a moral issue with a derivative.

Explore some Hobbes and Locke... Then add a little Bentham and Mill... And while you're at it Marx and Hegel...

Spyderman - No-one is advocating an unregulated 'free market'.......you are attacking a straw man.

Not far enough to stop you sounding like a 5th grade philosophy student.

Unfortunately what you do not realise spyderman is that you cannot build an economic system on moral grounds. This is because an economic system has to work first and foremost, people need to eat and have a roof over their head, no amount of high minded sentiment and idealism can replace that. The history of Communism shows this.

communism has no history because it has never existed. It hasn't even remotely been tried. The Soviet Union was nothing more than an authoritarian oligarchy in a red dress, the same could be said for China. In fact both had more in common with right wing fascistic govts than they did with anything Marxist. Show me in either country where there was worker owned and controlled industry

Show me in either country where there was worker owned and controlled industry

According to Karl Popper, Marxism is not a falsifiable theory. Ergo it has more in common with religion than any scientific theory.

Plainly speaking this means it is impossible to disprove that it works. Perhaps for this reason (during the Cold war) many Western intellectuals were captivated by the siren call of the Marxists ideal.

I think you were missing my original point however, by getting too hung up on the definition of 'communism', a definition perhaps you would only apply to the 'ideal' (or theoretical) Marxist society. I would apply it more generally. Substitute 'communism' for 'collective/planned' in my original post and you will see what I mean.

So I keep waiting to see how this theory of the so-called 'free market' is benefitting ther majority of Americans when all the actual readings don't support it. In fact the data shows the opposite so much that decades old theories are no longer applicable.

That is a view of a relativist. One needs too look at the ecnomy for more then 50 years. A free market is working, we're the closest thing to it and we're the wealthies country in the world with the lowest unemployement.

To say our ecnomy isnt working, is without fact. It may be your opinion, but it's not reality.

Spyderman - Don't really care to know that you think I need to mature. You're the only one here to out right acts other people. Why dont you stick to your WORD and stay out of PO forum. I do recall someone making a grand exit from the forum and now entering back it. That was you right?

BTW - I'm not saying government doesnt have a place in our ecnomy, I am saying that increasing their place in our economy isnt a good thing. It amazes me the people who say government is too controled by big business, and then turn around and say they want government more invovled with big business. Bunch of hypocrites.

Alot of good has happened because of government made legislation, yes. However when you start pushing to close down an economy thats bad. All evidence shows that international trade boosts your GDP. If you dont know this, you cannot argue about free trade. Frankly if none of you have studied/read/investigated free trade and our current ecnomic state (like KenB) then you really cannot claim to understand its impacts.

Free Trade is good for business. It's good for my business and others like me. Now if you stop trying to fight it and use the opportunity to make a living, then you're better off. Choose to fight it and you're left in the dust. Globalization is coming, now you can put your head in the sand and hope it doesnt happen to you, or wake up. Unfortunately for alot of Americans the world just got alot bigger for them over the last 5-10 years. We're all to blame for allowing our media to shelter us. But dont fear change, embrace it.

I see no further point in debating this topic, it's fact free trade is good for our economy. For those that want to see and improved middle class, you need to encourage them to improve their skills and command a higher wage. Our economy isn't failing, maybe yes we;re about to hit a slump, but thats really ok, our economy does that every now and again.

Peace guys, lets move on, this is like flogging a dead horse.

Free Trade is good for business. It's good for my business and others like me.


And that, boys and girls, pretty much says it all.

And that, boys and girls, pretty much says it all.

KenB - How many people do you employe? How many NEW jobs have you created in the last 5 years? As a total net value, how much have you or the company you own paided out in salary in the last 5 years?

I'd love to know the above to get a better understanding of exactly what you're doing besides complaining, that is helping our economy.

I recently have started up a new venture. We currently have 7 people on contract with us, and in the next 5 years will employee 5-12 new people. Ranging from low skilled to well skilled employees.

In the next 5 years my company will spend in the area of 1.5-2 million dollars in labor costs, stimulating the economy. Putting food on the table for families and allowing them to purchase homes.

We will also buy from industry, stimulating more jobs in other sectors.

What are you really doing about anything?

Are you all hot air or do you walk the talk?

I've learned something very interesting while working for myself. I often take home less pay then my salaried employes. WHY? Because I cant ask them to take a pay hit when sales are low, so I suck it up every now and again. I love this business I'm in, so some of my employees actually make more money then me every year.

These are manufacturing jobs and manufacturing goods that are being exported. The manufacturing industry is for the most part a pollution and chemical based industry that heavily relies on unskilled labor. For decades, the US economy has been moving away from manufacturing and towards an economy based on hi-tech. Hi-tech is where the high incomes are and where the investment money is being poured into. There is no future in manufacturing. That's why we are out sourcing these industries. Manufacturing jobs are low paying and dirty work.

Our future relies on biomedical, software, financial, robotics and research. These industries produce clean, hi-skilled and high paying jobs that will allow the US to continue its economic position in the world. Here's an example. Toyota out-sources their manufacturing of cars to Kentucky. But when you purchase a Toyota, the profit goes to Japanese banks and to pay Japanese engineers and executives. Very little or no profit trickles down to the laborer in Kentucky. Where the product is geographically manufactured doesn't matter. What does matter is – who controls the manufacturing process, who finances the manufacturing process and who designs the manufacturing process. Those are the jobs that we want to keep and those jobs represent the future of US economy.

:idea:

KenB - How many people do you employe? How many NEW jobs have you created in the last 5 years? As a total net value, how much have you or the company you own paided out in salary in the last 5 years?

Well, I don't own my own company but......

We have created a lot of jobs right here in the good old USofA (think 4 digits). Many of them in depressed areas and all of them paying no less than 3 to 4 times minimum wage plus benefits and bonuses for what most would consider minimum wage work. For my part, I use local resources wherever and whenever possible. That includes an annual CapEx budget of more than your company will see in the next five years. In some cases, it costs me more to use local resources but I do nonetheless, feeding back into the local economy in as many ways possible.

I'm also almost solely responsible for keeping a site open in the face of opposition from all executive management. This has allowed us to keep no less than 150 additional workers employed with jobs paying well over the market median and stimulating the local economy (the number is projected to double over the next 12 months). That accomplishment alone likely accounts for more net dollars over the past year than you've seen the entire time you've been in business.

All of this in spite of being forced to do things because our competition cares more about profit than they do anything else.

Oh, and we're profitable too.


So, you see, I don't just talk the talk.

KenB - I'm glad to hear it. I was concered this was alot of talk.

Maybe we have different approachs lets keep doing our things, and improve the economy from the inside out. No need for protectionism. Just good old fashion hard work. People I believe are the greatest influences, one person at a time.

No need for protectionism. Just good old fashion hard work. People I believe are the greatest influences, one person at a time.

nice sentiment, but don't you think that's a bit pie in the sky?

nice sentiment, but don't you think that's a bit pie in the sky?

I dont think its pie in the sky. I believe it and I live it.

KenB - I'm glad to hear it. I was concered this was alot of talk.

Maybe we have different approachs lets keep doing our things, and improve the economy from the inside out. No need for protectionism. Just good old fashion hard work. People I believe are the greatest influences, one person at a time.


No worries. :)

One of the reasons I feel so strongly about this is that many of our employees came from the manufacturing sector. We pay and treat them well but they're making a fraction of what they did before. Many have been off the unemployment books for a couple years and there is nothing other than burger flipping jobs available in their area. These folks have done everything short of relocating their entire family hundreds of miles. Many still commute 75+ miles. They were and are hard workers who lost their jobs, in some cases literally, to a Chinese sweat shop.

American businesses, IMO, have a responsibility that they're not living up to. The workers aren't fault free in many cases but that still doesn't relieve the businesses of their responsibility. Based on how you put your workers ahead of yourself, I gather that you generally agree with that sentiment. If so, we're not all that far apart after all.

That is a view of a relativist. One needs too look at the ecnomy for more then 50 years. A free market is working, we're the closest thing to it and we're the wealthies country in the world with the lowest unemployement.

To say our ecnomy isnt working, is without fact. It may be your opinion, but it's not reality.

Spyderman - Don't really care to know that you think I need to mature. You're the only one here to out right acts other people. Why dont you stick to your WORD and stay out of PO forum. I do recall someone making a grand exit from the forum and now entering back it. That was you right?

BTW - I'm not saying government doesnt have a place in our ecnomy, I am saying that increasing their place in our economy isnt a good thing. It amazes me the people who say government is too controled by big business, and then turn around and say they want government more invovled with big business. Bunch of hypocrites.

Alot of good has happened because of government made legislation, yes. However when you start pushing to close down an economy thats bad. All evidence shows that international trade boosts your GDP. If you dont know this, you cannot argue about free trade. Frankly if none of you have studied/read/investigated free trade and our current ecnomic state (like KenB) then you really cannot claim to understand its impacts.

Free Trade is good for business. It's good for my business and others like me. Now if you stop trying to fight it and use the opportunity to make a living, then you're better off. Choose to fight it and you're left in the dust. Globalization is coming, now you can put your head in the sand and hope it doesnt happen to you, or wake up. Unfortunately for alot of Americans the world just got alot bigger for them over the last 5-10 years. We're all to blame for allowing our media to shelter us. But dont fear change, embrace it.

I see no further point in debating this topic, it's fact free trade is good for our economy. For those that want to see and improved middle class, you need to encourage them to improve their skills and command a higher wage. Our economy isn't failing, maybe yes we;re about to hit a slump, but thats really ok, our economy does that every now and again.

Peace guys, lets move on, this is like flogging a dead horse.

See, this is what I'm talking about with you. Instead of debating the issue, you stomp your feet and tell me to go away...

Considering that there has been an increase in our poor population, over 16 million Americans and climbing. Could it be that the global economy is leaving these people behind? These numbers don't lie.

How does economics address this social/moral issue?

Look, I think there's a value to economic theory, just that it tends to over-reach and doesn't address every possible issue.

That said, when you have a social problem you gotta slow down and do more than tell people to improve their education to avoid being casualties of having their jobs off-shored. It's not like the average American can just stop working and go to school. They have kids and mortgages to pay...

If globalization were working, we wouldn't be seeing an increase in poverty in the US. It's obvious that people are being left behind. Once strong dominant US industries have been decimated. This issue needs to be addressed from a societal standpoint and not purely an economic utilitarian capitalist view.

You may improve your immediate bottom-line, but when you run out of American customers who can no longer afford your goods because their well-paying jobs have been off-shored and they now make $10 hr as a WalMart greeter... Perhaps then you'll realize you were wrong. But, by then, won't it be too late?

No worries. :)

One of the reasons I feel so strongly about this is that many of our employees came from the manufacturing sector. We pay and treat them well but they're making a fraction of what they did before. Many have been off the unemployment books for a couple years and there is nothing other than burger flipping jobs available in their area. These folks have done everything short of relocating their entire family hundreds of miles. Many still commute 75+ miles. They were and are hard workers who lost their jobs, in some cases literally, to a Chinese sweat shop.

American businesses, IMO, have a responsibility that they're not living up to. The workers aren't fault free in many cases but that still doesn't relieve the businesses of their responsibility. Based on how you put your workers ahead of yourself, I gather that you generally agree with that sentiment. If so, we're not all that far apart after all.

Lazy bastards should have planned better. If the Chinese and Indians can do the job for cheaper we all win. Right? :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

You may improve your immediate bottom-line, but when you run out of American customers who can no longer afford your goods because their well-paying jobs have been off-shored and they now make $10 hr as a WalMart greeter... Perhaps then you'll realize you were wrong. But, by then, won't it be too late?

Spyderman...it's so easy. He said it all right here!! "Just good old fashion hard work. People I believe are the greatest influences, one person at a time." :rolleyes:

//Bootstraps dammit! Bootstraps!

I have been responsible for managing Pensions for several companies & underfunded is not always a problem.

Underfunding occurs when the present value of future minimum pension payments (Under some forward looking assumptions I'll talk about later) exceeds the current & future expected, fund assets.

Here is what you are trying to do:

Predict the total future pension benefit and when it will occur by:

1.) predict when people are going to retire
2.) Predict what they are going to be making in the 5 (or so depending on plan) high earning years
3.) Predict how many of your current employees will leave before retirement
4.) Predict therefor what pension all these employees will earn & when they will earn it.
5.) Predict how long they will live & therefor collect pensions
6.) Predice how many people will elect to take more while they are alive and have their pension terminate on their death vs how many will take less in order for their spouse to collect during their lifetime.


Then you present value that back to today (based on interest rate assumptions.

Now you have to predict how much money you will have and when you will have it.

1.) You start with the assets in the plan now.
2.) You project what you expect those assets to earn by year over the life of the plan.
3.) You project what contributions you expect to make and when in the future.
4.) You back out by year the projected payments calculated above.


Then you present value all of that back to today's dollars.

You compare the 2 & you are either overfunded or underfunded. If you are underfunded you have to make up a good piece of the difference within a few years in order to maintain your contribution deduction for tax purposes (So there is an incentive to get close to fully funded).

If you llook at all the assumptions (read educated guesses) in the above, it is very rare for a plan to be exactly funded. What tends to swing the funding status all over is that you are usually using long term returns on assets to predict the growth in the pensions assets over time. Long term returns are pretty predictible...over a long time horizion, however, they can fluctuate dramaticially in any one year. Imagine with a $1 billion pension fund that is predicting a 8.5% return over time in a year where the return is only 5%...the earnings difference in that one year is $35 million. In other words, if they predicted every other variable correctly (Not likely) and started the year perfectly funded, they would end the year underfunded by $35 million. The reverse can also happen.

I'm not saying that there hasn't been and won't be mis-management of pensions. What I am saying is that funding status in any one year is not a good indicator of this. You have to look at funding over a 10 or so year period and you have to look at either changes in the plan and or changes in the investment market to begin to decipher if it's a management issue or not.

If you go back to the 5 years before the tech bubble burst, most plans in the US were overfunded....because the investment returns were so much greater than expected. Like I said, over time they equalize.

I still say The US automakers and the legacy airlines problems with their pension & retirement health care were caused by prior management making promises whose financial impace was not predicted & which are now coming home to roost.

Len

BTW, the next one to become visible are the government workers Pensions & Retirement health care liabilites. They are enormous. (See post office for preview.)

Len J - good comments thanks for your input.

Spyderman - people have to be responsible for their own lives. If they allow themselves to work for $10/hour thats their choice. If they cannot figure out how to take night classes, again thats their choice.

What is the measure of your sacrifice? - I think about this often. What will I sacrifice today to get where I want to be tomorrow? Maybe it's that I don't buy starbucks every day, or my wife doesnt get a pretty new dress for our next event. This all adds up. When people start living within their means, managing their money and reducing their debt. Then we can start talking about giving them more money. If you aren't responsible with little, how can anyone expect you to be responsible with alot?

What is the measure of your sacrifice? - I think about this often. What will I sacrifice today to get where I want to be tomorrow? Maybe it's that I don't buy starbucks every day, or my wife doesnt get a pretty new dress for our next event. This all adds up. When people start living within their means, managing their money and reducing their debt. Then we can start talking about giving them more money. If you aren't responsible with little, how can anyone expect you to be responsible with alot?
What about unexpected events like if a person gets cancer and has no insurance because they were saving $$ for their night classes to better themselves while stocking shelves at night for Walmart? Life isn't nearly as easy or simple as you make it seem. Maybe you can one day acknowledge the debt you have to those who got you where you are today and to the luck of being born in the US. Nobody is wholly self-made. It's the great American myth.

--Behind every great fortune there is a crime.
-Honoré de Balzac

that what we are really debating here is WHO benefits from free trade, and when they benefit?

It seems to me that if you take a very short term look at this, then the average American worker (assuming no entrapaneurship & innovation) does not benefit from free trade. Workers & economies of the developing nations benefit, while existing markets and manufacturing bases move from high cost areas to low cost areas. (BTW, the same thing happens withing the US (on a more micro basis) as jobs move from the rust belt to lower cost areas in the south, or from high cost cities to the country). As long as there is innovation and a renewal in the US economy these problems are mitigated somewhat (overall) though individual workers are always impacted.

However, if you take a longer term view, what is really being created are vibrant new markets with money, for the fruits of whatever innovation happens in the home market.

Unfortunatly, as is evidenced by this thread, this is a very emotional topic, because many believe that the US is somehow "Entitled" to continued economic prosperity, the rest of the world be damned. We take care of our own first, then we worry about everybody else. Unfortunatly, this is not sustainable. The best way to combat terrorism is to enhance the economies of the seed countries. Terrorism flourishes where there is no hope of a better life. Strong vibrant economies provide hope. You think China is moving toward capitalsm becuse of some idelogical shift....That's BS....China's leaders are scared Shi$less of their population revolting.....Capitalism provides the only means of support.

I do agree with those that point to environmental regulations as a cost advantage and we need to work hard to tie our trade to improvements in this. As to wage equalization....that will only happen as the other economies develop, the same way it happens in the US from one goegraphic area to another.

Sealing our borders otr raising tariffs to the point where we start a trade war will only raise inflation in the US.....and I think everyone would agree that that is not good for the US worker.

The things we can do to keep our economy vibrant are:

1.) Reduce defecit spending at home
2.) Rationalize government
3.) Enter into mutually beneficial trade agreements that acknowledge that we can't be great at everything.
4.) Promote innovation
5.) Ensure that the birth rate never goes negative.

The stronger the economy is at home, the better free trade will work to both protect the US worker and at the same time raise the standard of linving around the world. Free trade can do this, as long as neither we or our trading partners have an entitlement mentality.

len

Len hits some high points here...excellent discussion of the real issues.

In many places, we are just the managers and bankers and developers, no longer the do-ers. When I look around San Francisco I see a population almost entirely devoid of workers who create physical things. People work in many aspects of the service industry and either get by living somewhere dirt cheap or do a long long commute. You can also make a good living if you work as a manager of sorts, whether that be in finance, IT, whatever field you have an advanced degree and some skills in.

But there isn't a middle ground, and service work doesn't seem to be keeping everyone employed...I don't have a solution but to pretend there isn't a problem because it's 'how the market works' is silly...

Terrorism flourishes where there is no hope of a better life.

Sources please? Please back this statement up.

It is one of the many causes......See wikipedia

Causes

The context in which terrorist tactics are used is often a large-scale, unresolved political conflict (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conflict).
The type of conflict varies widely; historical examples include:

Secession (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secession) of a territory to form a new sovereign state
Dominance of territory or resources by various ethnic groups (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_groups)
Imposition of a particular form of government, such as democracy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy), theocracy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theocracy), or anarchy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchy)
Economic deprivation of a population
Opposition to a domestic government or occupying armyTerrorism is a form of asymmetric warfare (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asymmetric_warfare), and is more common when direct conventional warfare (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conventional_warfare) either cannot be (due to differentials in available forces) or is not being used to resolve the underlying conflict.
In some cases, the rationale for a terrorist attack may be uncertain (as in the many attacks for which no group or individual claims responsibility) or unrelated to any large-scale social conflict (such as the Sarin gas attack on the Tokyo subway (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarin_gas_attack_on_the_Tokyo_subway) by Aum Shinrikyo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aum_Shinrikyo)).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism

But I believe that the probability of this occuring in a strong economic environment is dramaticially reduced.
Len

What about unexpected events like if a person gets cancer and has no insurance because they were saving $$ for their night classes to better themselves while stocking shelves at night for Walmart? Life isn't nearly as easy or simple as you make it seem. Maybe you can one day acknowledge the debt you have to those who got you where you are today and to the luck of being born in the US. Nobody is wholly self-made. It's the great American myth.

Then the person dies. Thats the reality of life. Bad things happen, we cannot ensure that every person lives till 85 years old in a middle class lifestyle. Thats not reality, thats a great ideal.

Maybe my view is simplistic, but if I die young my family will not be burdened with debt because we have gathered little.

The only debt I have is to God and my family for supporting me. There are nice people I've met along my way, however I realize I'm not entitled to an amazing life nor am I in their debt. I can only work towards it the life I want.

Len I agree with you, and thank you for summarizing the key points so nicely.

International trading decreases global violence and wars. If you've studied international marketing, or global trade you'd know this. Simply developing countries dont want to bite the hand that feeds them. People with hope are less proned to conflict.

that what we are really debating here is WHO benefits from free trade, and when they benefit?

It seems to me that if you take a very short term look at this, then the average American worker (assuming no entrapaneurship & innovation) does not benefit from free trade. Workers & economies of the developing nations benefit, while existing markets and manufacturing bases move from high cost areas to low cost areas. (BTW, the same thing happens withing the US (on a more micro basis) as jobs move from the rust belt to lower cost areas in the south, or from high cost cities to the country). As long as there is innovation and a renewal in the US economy these problems are mitigated somewhat (overall) though individual workers are always impacted.

However, if you take a longer term view, what is really being created are vibrant new markets with money, for the fruits of whatever innovation happens in the home market.

Unfortunatly, as is evidenced by this thread, this is a very emotional topic, because many believe that the US is somehow "Entitled" to continued economic prosperity, the rest of the world be damned. We take care of our own first, then we worry about everybody else. Unfortunatly, this is not sustainable. The best way to combat terrorism is to enhance the economies of the seed countries. Terrorism flourishes where there is no hope of a better life. Strong vibrant economies provide hope. You think China is moving toward capitalsm becuse of some idelogical shift....That's BS....China's leaders are scared Shi$less of their population revolting.....Capitalism provides the only means of support.

I do agree with those that point to environmental regulations as a cost advantage and we need to work hard to tie our trade to improvements in this. As to wage equalization....that will only happen as the other economies develop, the same way it happens in the US from one goegraphic area to another.

Sealing our borders otr raising tariffs to the point where we start a trade war will only raise inflation in the US.....and I think everyone would agree that that is not good for the US worker.

The things we can do to keep our economy vibrant are:

1.) Reduce defecit spending at home
2.) Rationalize government
3.) Enter into mutually beneficial trade agreements that acknowledge that we can't be great at everything.
4.) Promote innovation
5.) Ensure that the birth rate never goes negative.

The stronger the economy is at home, the better free trade will work to both protect the US worker and at the same time raise the standard of linving around the world. Free trade can do this, as long as neither we or our trading partners have an entitlement mentality.

len


Oh please, this is the same 'globalization' BS excuse businesses use to exploit cheap labor markets at the expense of the American worker..

This 'long-term' argument is BS cause the incentive to off-shore jobs is to improve the quarterly earnings report.

If this argument were valid how come US businesses aren't outsourcing to the Middle East? Somalia? Pakistan? What about the Dark Continent?

If this is working, then please explain why the number of poor Americans, 16 million, has increased over the past 6 years?

What kind of jobs will be available to our injured boys and girls coming home from Iraq? I guess they better learn the phrase: "Welcome to Wal-Mart"

Len, you're drinking the kool-aid.

Nevermind......

Nevermind......

C'mon, defend your points on globalization.

IF the idea of globalization is in the name of creating a more stable world, and less terrorism, then why aren't businesses off-shoring jobs to the Middle East?

If it's good enough to justify a needless war, then we certainly can use it to try to justify our exploitation of cheap labor markets at the expense of the American worker...

Wrap it in the flag, stamp democracy on the side, and who could resist.

I'm not buying it.

C'mon, defend your points on globalization.

IF the idea of globalization is in the name of creating a more stable world, and less terrorism, then why aren't businesses off-shoring jobs to the Middle East?

If it's good enough to justify a needless war, then we certainly can use it to try to justify our exploitation of cheap labor markets at the expense of the American worker...

Wrap it in the flag, stamp democracy on the side, and who could resist.

I'm not buying it.

you've totally missed the point of my post in the interest of your own preconceived idea of how things work.

I never said that the idea of globilization is in the name of a more stable world and less terrorism....rather what I said was that free trade, results in a higher economic environement in those areas/countries that persue it. China is persuing it...and lo & behold their standard of living is improving. What I said was that the result was better economies in developing nations......

The reason this is not happening in the middle east is because no governments in the middle east are persuing it. You can't force industries into countries, but countries can create environments that are more attractive. Clearly this is not happeneing in the middle east.

Look at Vietnam........it's becoming more and more attractive to both American, Japanese, and EU investment.

The other point is...raise the standard of living and I beleive the breeding ground for terrorism is reduced.

I know none of that fits your paradim....but nontheless it is true.

Len

IF the idea of globalization is in the name of creating a more stable world, and less terrorism,


No that is not the idea of 'globalisation'. 'Globalisation' is not an ideology.....it just 'is'. What people in this thread are saying is that more global trade (globalisation) increases stability, and reduces the risk of conflict, since everyone in the world is more inter-dependant upon one another.


........why aren't businesses off-shoring jobs to the Middle East?



Same reason you would not stake your morgage on a craps game.....too much risk.

No that is not the idea of 'globalisation'. 'Globalisation' is not an ideology.....it just 'is'. What people in this thread are saying is that more global trade (globalisation) increases stability, and reduces the risk of conflict, since everyone in the world is more inter-dependant upon one another.


Yes. I agree with that entirely.

you've totally missed the point of my post in the interest of your own preconceived idea of how things work.

I never said that the idea of globilization is in the name of a more stable world and less terrorism....rather what I said was that free trade, results in a higher economic environement in those areas/countries that persue it. China is persuing it...and lo & behold their standard of living is improving. What I said was that the result was better economies in developing nations......

The reason this is not happening in the middle east is because no governments in the middle east are persuing it. You can't force industries into countries, but countries can create environments that are more attractive. Clearly this is not happeneing in the middle east.

Look at Vietnam........it's becoming more and more attractive to both American, Japanese, and EU investment.

The other point is...raise the standard of living and I beleive the breeding ground for terrorism is reduced.

I know none of that fits your paradim....but nontheless it is true.

Len

Alright, replace globalization with free trade (just semantics). Still doesn't explain the increase in the rolls of the US poor, 16 million people.

You still tried to claim that free trade reduces terrorism... Got any empirical data/numbers that show such a decrease?

Here's a number that might interest you. In Bejing alone, they're putting 1000 new cars, and 500 used cars, on the road every day. That's over 500,000 cars every year... in Bejing alone. :eek:

Now, do we just open our markets and allow these $9,000 cars to come in and compete with our already declining auto market? If not, why not? Wouldn't it be good for our economy?

This is the problem with free trade, it isn't fair trade. Tariffs in China aren't the same as they are in the US. It's like 20% in China... They protect their markets, yet they're still able to grow... This goes for many different countries.

Time to be realistic about the situation.

spyderman - the number of peopel who made over a million dollars also has been growing every year.

The picture you paint is only one sided. However there are many sides to this story.

You can look at a 9000 car and cry boohoo poor autoworkers jobs. But their unions have pushed for higher pay, bigger retirement and force domestic car companies to be uncompeititve. All in the name of the middle class.

Now it seems to me that a 9000 car will be great for business, allowing more people access to inexpensive transportation. The cars they build are also better on gas then the average domestic. Tell me whats wrong with this picture?

Why aren't we being as competitive? We CAN make cars that are stylish, get 45mpg and are responsibly price. Yet we focus on trucks, which all of the domestic truck sales have fallen; and only honda/toyata/nissa have seen steady or growing truck sales.

If anything spyderman, we're doing it to ourselves. If our market needs were meet there would be no room for competition. We dont need to close the boarder t