On Fri, 03 Jun 2005 02:44:07 -0700, Frank Gilliland
wrote:

Did you miss this post, too, Dave?

Frank, I'll choose which posts I wish to respond to and which ones I
won't . Trying to bury me under a pile of nonsense is not going to
work Frank.



The answer is A because loyalty must be earned, and American's have a
very good long-term memory.

Even if the American company is forced out of business by cheaper
foreign competitors?

Considering that other countries have no objection to using cheap
foreign labor, and producing products cheaper, the U.S. company is now
at a competitive disadvantage with those products which they are in
direct competition from foreign companies.


American workers could be easily protected with import tariffs; but
Bush's butt has been kissed (and licked, sucked, wiped and powdered)
by corporations seeking cheap labor, so he is pushing for open-border
trade agreements with third-world countries.

Tariffs are an overly naive and simplistic answer, which will not
help. I'll tell you why. First off, the import tariff will raise the
price of imported goods which drive up the costs that the American
consumer pays. Then the worker will demand more in raises to
compensate, and you now have inflation.


Wrong.

No, right. If you are going to claim that I am "wrong", protocol
dictates that you provide corroborating evidence to back it up. Simply
claiming that I'm wrong based on little more than your own ignorance
of economics is not going to be seriously considered.



Import tariffs drive up the cost of -imported- products, which
in turn encourages -domestic- production and manufacturing. The prices
will go up, as will the wages;

Which translates to....... INFLATION!

If you want to pay $500 again for a VCR or DVD player, and $400 again
for a decent CB (Like it was in the 70's not even accounting for
inflation) then maybe this might appeal to you. But the problem is
that the American public has become adjusted to receiving high
American wages, while paying for cheaper imported goods. If the price
of goods increases substantially, then the wages of the workers will
have to jump to cover it. When that happens the cost of corporate
direct labor and overhead goes up, and they have to raise the price of
manufactured goods to cover it. And the cycle of inflation repeats.
Part of the reason why the rate of inflation has been so low for the
last several years is due to the fact that the cost of goods had
actually dropped as corporations tighten their belts and outsource
more of their labor. Demand for higher wages has fallen, and inflation
remains in check.


but the overall effect is that the
domestic economy is stimulated, which more than compensates for any
short-term dips. And for the record, it also reduces the amount paid
for welfare since more people are working.

I'm not sure where to start since you have such a myopic view of
global economics. This isn't the USA solely owning it's own
corporations any more. Practically all large corporations are
multi-national to some degree. They compete in many markets of which
the US is but one consumer. Tariffs will only help the domestic
market. It will do little to help the corporation in the international
market share.


Secondly, the U.S. is but ONE
consumer of goods. American companies trying to compete in foreign
markets will not have the protection of the tariff and they will
wither under strong foreign competition which they will not be able to
match. Also, other countries do not like tariff policies and would
likely impose tariffs on our goods in retaliation to our tariffs on
theirs. Surely you can figure out what would happen then.


Wrong on both counts. American innovation and technology is, and has
always been, one of the primary exports of this country.

You blindly assume that Americans are the only ones who can master
this area. Have you spent any time in the Pacific Rim lately? We're
about to be eclipsed by Japan (If not already), and many other
countries (such as India) are also closing in on us in technology
related fields.

Stimulate the
industrial base and you stimulate people and businesses to be more
innovative (instead of using the word as an advertising gimmick).

You should write motivational slogans. Empty, hollow, and meaningless
words designed to make us feel good, but carry absolutely no weight.

But since you cannot provide substance for your claims, allow me to
provide it for mine:

http://web.infoweb.ne.jp/fairtradec/new/b031107.pdf

This report outlines, among other things, what happens when a global
organization, such as the WHO, reacts negatively to what they perceive
as "protectionist" tactics such as tariffs. So tell me again how I am
"wrong" about potential retaliation for any tariffs we may place on
foreign made goods.


Tell me, would you pay 50 - 100% more for a TV or some other product
just to keep the U.S. company here? Considering that the government is
squeezing more and more money out of us in the form of taxes, and the
costs of things like fuel are skyrocketing, we look for the best
bargains in everything we buy.


Because the taxes are on the Americans, not on the import corporations
(e.g, Walmart, aka 'China Inc.') where they should be.

See above.



And that doesn't cover the foreign market. Would a European pay more
for a U.S. made product over a foreign made product?


Depends on where that 'foreign' product was made.

Does it matter? If it's cheaper, they will buy it.


I guess that's why Mercedes, Jags and BMW's sell so well, huh? Didn't
you learn anything in our discussion about how a quality education is
often preferred over a lesser degree? If you did, what part of your
brain is unable to apply the underlying concept to other situations?

So you posit that a Ford is on equal standing, quality wise, with a
Mercedes? People will sometimes pay more for something if they
perceive a greater value for it. So I ask again, is the relative value
of a Ford the same as that of a Mercedes? Would the Ford be able to
compete on a price basis with a Mercedes? If not for the cheaper price
of the domestic car, would they not lose all market share to those
foreign companies if they were forced to compete on a purely quality
basis?

Besides the obvious pedigree and prestige that names like Mercedes
bring to the table, there is also the issue of status. That's why
idiots will pay thousands more for a Lexus, which is little more than
a Toyota with a few superficial frills and a different emblem badge.

Why do you think sales of imported cars have become such a threat
here? GM, Ford, and Mopar are all feeling the pinch. It used to be
that the foreign cars were significantly more expensive (Mostly due to
import tariffs), and the domestic product sold well because it was
cheaper. Now, since the prices are fairly close, the perception of
better quality that comes with the Japanese cars, has convinced people
to abandon the "Buy American" motif, in favor of their own bottom
line.

This example also speaks to your assumption of "superior American
technology" and ingenuity. Don't look now, but we've been beaten at
our own game.


What ultimately happens to a U.S. corporation who loses a competitive
edge?


Any US corp that chooses to cut American jobs instead of lobbying for
import tariffs against foreign competitors is, in the most tactful of
terms, economically nearsighted.

So, then, you would rather an American company keep it's American
workforce in a patriotic corporate suicide attempt, as it folds under
unmatchable competition from abroad? What if all US companies fold or
move their corporate headquarters offshore? Then what?


What if all US companies lobbied for import tariffs?

What if there really were a man in the moon?



What happens when there are no more cheap labor countries like China?
Can you spell double digit inflation??? How about 20% per yr for about
ten yrs. Maybe even longer or higher inflation rates.

Yes, inflation is a very real fear.


No, it's not. It's a hope. Inflation, in a free market economy, is an
'equalizer' -- it's an effect of a surplus of cash in circulation,
which usually ends up in the hands of those who need it the most.
Historically, inflation hurts the rich and benefits the poor, which is
something you never hear from the "left-wing, liberally biased media".

Well that's true to an extent. Those who invest their money in fixed
rate securities (retired people) will earn more interest, while those
seeking to borrow, will pay more. But the rich are who generally
create the jobs that the rest of us work at.


Wrong. The failure of Reaganomics proved that people create their own
jobs when the rich get too greedy. They do so out of necessity.

Reagonomics was far from a failure. It is what stimulated the last 2
decades of economic growth, especially in the tech sector which was
heavily made up of small, face-paced startup companies. You know, like
Microsoft.




If inflation cuts into
their costs too much, they will have to reduce the workforce or make
other cuts (outsource?) to keep the margins.


It really doesn't matter since the US is no longer a free-market
economy -- the Federal Reserve has tight (and probably illegal)
control over the money supply and keeps the inflation rate down
artificially.

The Fed only controls the rate at which money is borrowed.

Any time the government mucks with the market, it upsets the balance
of the free market. Why do you think healthcare costs are so high?

But when the standard of living
equalizes, then there will be no further incentive to manufacture
overseas. Then factors such as shipping costs will make domestic
manufacturing attractive again for the U.S. market. Inflation may also
be mitigated by market pressures. If people cannot afford to buy as
much, demand goes down. When demand goes down, so does the price.
That's free market 101.


You obviously failed Economics 101, and probably never took Macro- or
Micro-Economics.

Sigh. You can't get through a post without an insult can you Mr
Bartender?


Nope. Can you get through a post without a demonstration of your
ignorance and lack of education?

I'm still waiting for something more significant than just your
opposing opinion to substantiate that.



Cheap labor will always be available in any country that's poor in
natural resources. There are many, and that's not going to change
anytime soon. The fact that Iraq's new "government" refused to allow
labor unions (a law imposed by Saddam) should be a good indication as
to where the next market for cheap labor will be found.

But Iraq is not poor in natural resources.


But Iraq's natural resources are only partially owned and controlled
by Iraq. They were fully owned by Iraq under Saddam, but after his
overthrow many international conglomerates (mostly US and UK oil
companies, most of which include the Bush family as stockholders)
invoked claims that existed prior to Saddam. The people of Iraq are
going to see hardly any of the money that comes from their own
resources -- instead it's going right into the pockets of oil company
fat-cats.

I suppose I'm grasping at straws to ask that you back that up with
something official.



In time the US will suffer. Prepare for
China owning more an dmore of teh US debt and consequently the US'
economy .

Ok, We pretty much agree that the road ahead will be a bit bumpy. So
what do we do about it? Can we do anything about it?


Push your elected officials to do their job -- make them understand
that they are lobbyists for their constituents, not the constituents
of lobbyists for special interest groups or corporations.

Well then we need to outlaw all corporate election contributions.


Well gee, Dave, what a novel idea.

Now try to get it passed eh?

Getting the picture yet?

Dave
"Sandbagger"
http://home.ptd.net/~n3cvj