On Fri, 03 Jun 2005 10:15:11 -0400, Dave Hall
wrote in :

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.


No, -you- don't work, Dave. You can't accept the fact that you are
wrong, and when I post facts that you can't spin or obfuscate you
simply ignore those posts and pick the posts that you feel you can
work to your advantage. It's a bonehead tactic and you are too
ignorant to see that it works to -my- advantange, not your's.


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!


Inflation occurs when the costs increase faster than the wages (an
explanation simplified for someone with your level of education).
Import tariffs actually -reduce- inflation for the very simple reason
that the export deficits are reduced and more American money stays in
America.


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.


VCRs and CBs were expensive because of their popularity at the time,
not because of inflation.


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.


You are assuming the premises that 1) the cost of imported products
will "increase substantially", and 2) that there are no domestic
substitutes for those products. Both are wrong:

The price of -any- product relies upon the laws of supply and demand.
If you have a hammer made in China and a hammer made in the USA, the
price is going to be the same because the market dictates the price.
That's why it's called a "free-market economy". Imposing import
tariffs increases the costs to the manufacturers of the hammers from
China, but the price remains the same because the demand hasn't
changed. But because of the increased cost to China the supply from
China will be smaller. That reduction in supply is met with an
increased supply of hammers from the US manufacturers, who are now
relieved of some of the foreign competition. In the process, more
Americans are hired to make those hammers, which, in turn, improves
the economic status of not only the company that manufactures the
hammers, but also of the community that benefits from the jobs and the
government that benefits from the taxes. Everybody wins except China.


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.


Wrong again. Inflation has been held in check by interference by the
Federal Reserve. Greenspan sets the prime interest rate to control
lending (which puts money into the economy), and with the buying and
selling of T-bills. Despite this, inflation -does- occur because the
major inflationary indicators are not perfect and the calculations are
usually flawed to some extent. But because of this interference, there
is no longer a free-market economy, and free-market economic models no
longer apply. So it's possible to have inflation and recession at the
same time, or have two or three economic markets operating independent
of each other. Regardless of it's unnatural complexity, the economy is
manipulated to the advantage of those that wield power over the
Federal Reserve. And regardless of the economic impact of import
tariffs, the Federal Reserve will control any inflation (to the extent
that it can be controlled), with the added benefit that the country
stops bleeding from huge export deficits.


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.


Find me one American that's willing to stand in the unemployment line
so someone from India or China or Venezuela can have their job.


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.


Then we better get some better policies started pretty soon, huh?
Speaking of policy, when do you suppose Bush is going to make good on
his promise to unite the parties and do away with partisan politics?


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.


There are plenty of people doing that already. Most of them work for
auto manufacturers, insurance corporations, Bank of America, and
political campaign organizations.


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.


Sure. Go to college and take Macro- and Micro-Economics. And since you
are so gullible, try to avoid those neocon and WTO proxy websites.


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.


Oh, you mean like if an employer sees a greater value in a better
education?


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?


Finally, you see the light! Now hit the archives from a couple months
ago and see how you flip-flopped on the issue.


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.


I have to agree with you on that one.


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.


The price difference in the past had little to do with import tariffs
and much more to do with raw materials. That's why nowdays we cut down
our own trees, ship them off to foreign countries to be made into
plywood, which is shipped back and sold in the US for ridiculous
prices. This is a direct result of "free trade" with foreign
countries, not high labor costs in the US as many claim. Because of
these free-trade agreements, restrictions were lifted for raw
materials being exported but -not- for raw materials being used for
domestic manufacturing. Same deal with imported products. If you are
going to invoke the WTO to support your arguments then at least learn
something about the dirty deals the US has made in its benefit. I'm
suprised you haven't because Clinton made a few of those dirty deals.


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.


That's because you are ignoring the fact that technology is exported
just as easily as wood.


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?


It's more likely than your "mass corporate suicide" scenario.


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.


LOL!


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.


And Enron, Worldcom, numerous Savings & Loans, etc, etc.


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.


Wrong. They also buy and sell T-bills, which either injects or removes
money from the economy, respectively. Regardless, the prime interest
rate controls the amount of money that is borrowed, and the amount of
money borrowed has a direct effect on the amount of money circulating
in the economy, even much more so than the buying and selling of
T-bills.


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?


Insurance companies. Probably the biggest legalized racket since
organized religion.


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.


Sounds like I need to make another list here pretty soon.....


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.


US/UK ownership and control of Iraq's oil prior to Saddam (Iraqi Oil
Company, later known as Shell Oil) is well documented. Try Funk &
Wagnall's. The fact that Saddam reclaimed Iraq's oil was not only
documented by Western civilization but used as propaganda by Saddam.
He even tried to reclaim oil fields that were stolen from Iraq by
international charter long before Saddam took power (see Funk &
Wagnall's for the history of Kuwait). Only one month after the US
invasion, Philip Carroll, the former CEO of Shell Oil USA, took
control of Iraq's oil production for the US Government. By January
2004, a "state-owned" oil company was created by James Baker (former
Secretary of State, now an attorney representing Exxon-Mobil) that
favoured the US oil industry. Shell Oil (as well as several other US
oil companies) quickly established exclusive contracts with this new
Iraqi oil company.

Any more dumb questions that you could have answered yourself by using
the internet?


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?


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.....
......hmmmm, seems I've said all this before.....


Getting the picture yet?


Are you getting the picture that the government is supposed to work
for the people?







----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----