schlimm Greyhounds: Although your example of what happens re; ethanol made in Iowa and someone paying more for gas in NJ is true, it confirms my conclusion. You see money and jobs as equivalents, which totally disregards the other monetized and non-monetized aspects of jobs. You prefer to appease China at the expense of American workers' jobs without really knowing anything about China. While China has not engaged in any wars since Korea, other than border skirmishes with Viet Nam and the old Soviet Union, compared to our almost continuous state of war, the risk of armed conflict with that nation seems unlikely.
Greyhounds: Although your example of what happens re; ethanol made in Iowa and someone paying more for gas in NJ is true, it confirms my conclusion. You see money and jobs as equivalents, which totally disregards the other monetized and non-monetized aspects of jobs. You prefer to appease China at the expense of American workers' jobs without really knowing anything about China. While China has not engaged in any wars since Korea, other than border skirmishes with Viet Nam and the old Soviet Union, compared to our almost continuous state of war, the risk of armed conflict with that nation seems unlikely.
Well, here you go. You are unable to deal with the facts in discussion, so you resort to an attack on the source of the facts.
You don't have a clue as to what I know or don't know about China. But you make the false accusation that I "really know nothing of China".
The facts you don't deal with include the certainty that your proposed tariff would cause ecnomic hardship/unemployment in China. This will not make the Chinese people happy. How they react, how the totalitarian government of China deals with any unrest, and what international actions that government make take is beyond knowing.
Appease is certainly the wrong word. There's a big difference between appeasement and intentionally backing some country in to a corner.
More importantly, you continually ignore the fact that your proposed tariff will also cause economic hardship/unemployment in the US. It will increase the prices people must pay for goods. That means they're going to have to buy fewer goods. This will reduce employment for railroad workers, truck drivers, etc. It will even reduce unemployment in the US manufacturing sector. People will reduce consumption of goods manufactured in the US because they're paying more for other goods. They can't spend the paycheck twice.
These tariffs, such as you propose, do tremendous harm. There will be some few in the US who would benefit, but those benefits will pale in comparison to the harm done in the US.
This is reality. You can't/won't/don't want to deal with this reality. So you attack the source and not the facts.
With that, I'm out of here. Gone Fishin'.
greyhounds: You only reconfirm what I stated. You prefer to continue to allow China to engage in unfair practices because you are afraid any temporary compensatory tariffs will upset China and cause them to go to war with us? Please! Yes, by all means go fishing with your Made-in-China fly rod!
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
schlimmBut if wealth transfers occur, many Americans would prefer the transfer occur within the US rather than transfer wealth to another country, be it Brazil, Saudi Arabia or China.
oltmanndschlimm It is about having a government and corporations that stand up for AmericansAmericans are not intrinsically worth more than others. The problem is the upheaval caused by the rate of change. The change is progress. It is a problem that is hard to deal with. The solution is not, and cannot be to slow the rate of change - unless, of course you like how Cuba and N. Korea turned out. Of course there is no such thing as a totally level playing field, but people and governments ought to be about the business of the most good for everyone, not gaming the system so that one party wins a lot but the sum of the system is less.
schlimm It is about having a government and corporations that stand up for Americans
Of course there is no such thing as a totally level playing field, but people and governments ought to be about the business of the most good for everyone, not gaming the system so that one party wins a lot but the sum of the system is less.
Don, Americans may not be worth more than others, but their country and government sure have been better than anybody else's for more than 200 years -- for which you can thank the Founders, God, luck or maybe even the American people.
Most Americans would probably agree that, if they are no better than anybody else, the people they put in charge, if they are doing their job, are bound to seek their advantage. In the expectation that every other government in the world is, according to its best lights, attempting to do the same for its own people.
Arguing a close call, Baltimore Orioles manager Earl Weaver famously exploded to an umpire, "All I want is my fair advantage!" Earl's request was unreasonable, because the umpire was not on his payroll. Such a request is not out of order when made to our politicians and business leaders.
As I said in an earlier post, the success of "free trade" is, from its fruits, not self-evident.
oltmannd I have always thought the the greatest tragedy for unionized workers in this country was the inability of their union to push for things that would keep their members valuable as the world shifted around them. Valuable employees can demand greater pay and benefits. Anybody ever hear of a union asking for a paid education sabbatical as part of the agreement?
As much as I would love for that to happen - be realistic. The companies are not going to go for that. If for nothing else than your reasoning: "Valuable employees can demand greater pay and benefits."
That is the problem, we want Americans to stay on top of the educational/learning curve, yet we make schooling cost prohibitive for most. Especially people with full time jobs and families. It would be great for employers to offer employees sabbaticals, but what's in it for them? They hire people to perform work, not attend school.
It's been fun. But it isn't much fun anymore. Signing off for now.
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.t fun any
zugmannoltmannd I have always thought the the greatest tragedy for unionized workers in this country was the inability of their union to push for things that would keep their members valuable as the world shifted around them. Valuable employees can demand greater pay and benefits. Anybody ever hear of a union asking for a paid education sabbatical as part of the agreement? As much as I would love for that to happen - be realistic. The companies are not going to go for that. If for nothing else than your reasoning: "Valuable employees can demand greater pay and benefits." That is the problem, we want Americans to stay on top of the educational/learning curve, yet we make schooling cost prohibitive for most. Especially people with full time jobs and families. It would be great for employers to offer employees sabbaticals, but what's in it for them? They hire people to perform work, not attend school.
Bet no union ever even suggested it, tho;....
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
oltmanndzugmannoltmannd I have always thought the the greatest tragedy for unionized workers in this country was the inability of their union to push for things that would keep their members valuable as the world shifted around them. Valuable employees can demand greater pay and benefits. Anybody ever hear of a union asking for a paid education sabbatical as part of the agreement? As much as I would love for that to happen - be realistic. The companies are not going to go for that. If for nothing else than your reasoning: "Valuable employees can demand greater pay and benefits." That is the problem, we want Americans to stay on top of the educational/learning curve, yet we make schooling cost prohibitive for most. Especially people with full time jobs and families. It would be great for employers to offer employees sabbaticals, but what's in it for them? They hire people to perform work, not attend school. Same thing that's in it for them when they agree to pay increases - a contract, and workers who will work. Bet no union ever even suggested it, tho;....
Well, teachers' unions I'm sure, but they are required by law to continue education (at least in my state). Even they don't usually get to take sabbaticals to do it, though...
Now are we talking about training (directly related to the job) or more broader education? I got a bunch of training for free (actually got paid for it) at my job. But if a union suggests that their members be entitled to broader education (with sabbatical)? The non-union crowds will have a field day with that one.
I think it's a great idea, but I don't ever see it happening.
schlimmAnd China has not let the Yuan float in the currency markets. Not so far. Just talk. No other nation is permitted to do that, regardless of holdings of Treasuries. The Yuan has been grossly undervalued for years. We should impose an across the board tariff to compensate until they do.
If the US imposed an "across the board tariff", would not China just stop financing America's deficits? That would cause another sharp recession over here, wouldn't it?
greyhoundsYou don't have a clue as to what I know or don't know about China. But you make the false accusation that I "really know nothing of China".
Unfortunately, your prior posts on this thread support this statement.
Victrola1 "In a joint statement, the companies said the study supports the idea that "a large-scale pipeline project is feasible under certain conditions and that a federal loan guarantee is necessary to move forward."Meanwhile, the 45-cent-per-gallon tax credit that subsidizes ethanol production is due to expire at the end of the year, and the industry is split over what should be done." http://www.desmoinesregister.com/article/20100720/BUSINESS01/7200359/1001/NEWS/Ethanol-boost-called-vital-to-biofuel-carrying-pipeline What affect on railroads?
"In a joint statement, the companies said the study supports the idea that "a large-scale pipeline project is feasible under certain conditions and that a federal loan guarantee is necessary to move forward."Meanwhile, the 45-cent-per-gallon tax credit that subsidizes ethanol production is due to expire at the end of the year, and the industry is split over what should be done."
http://www.desmoinesregister.com/article/20100720/BUSINESS01/7200359/1001/NEWS/Ethanol-boost-called-vital-to-biofuel-carrying-pipeline
What affect on railroads?
If built, this would obviously compete for and likely take business from any current unit trains moved from the midwest to the coast. Other than maybe gaining some pipe loads the net effect would be fewer cars of ethanol thus less traffic to haul and few, if any, unit trains.
On the project itself the most telling item to me is a quote from the article itself:
As for the pipeline, the Energy Department study said moving ethanol that way would cost shippers 28 cents per gallon, compared with 19 cents for rail or truck.
Even the Ethanol industry sees a drop in production coming:http://www.ethanolproducer.com/article.jsp?article_id=5244
Take home message:No pipeline should be built.
Dan
Thanks, CNW, for attempting to steer the thread back to the topic set out by the originator.
-Crandell
selector Thanks, CNW, for attempting to steer the thread back to the topic set out by the originator.
And if that doesn't happen, and we continued our discussion about free trade instead, who cares? Who's hurt?
I say let the free market of ideas steer these threads. Any threads that stray too far from railroads into true irrelevancy to this forum will police themselves by going away for lack of interest. As this one is in the process of doing?
I don’t believe that world free trade is just an issue of either we have it, or we don’t. While free trade is pure and ideal, it opens the door to the mother of unleveled playing fields. Dismissing this by saying nothing is perfect is denial IMHO.
Regarding the ethanol pipeline’s affect on the railroads, it would obviously hurt them because of taking away ethanol shipments by rail. In a larger context, it would also hurt them by depressing the economy by more unsustainable government spending.
When it comes to subsidies and redistribution, I am afraid that, not only has that horse has left the barn, but it prances around proudly mocking us.
Bucyrusnot only has that horse has left the barn, but it prances around proudly mocking us.
oltmanndBucyrusnot only has that horse has left the barn, but it prances around proudly mocking us. Is a mocking horse related to a stalking horse or a rocking horse? Or, and iron horse?
Eleanor Roosevelt would never mock ones horse.
MurrayoltmanndBucyrusnot only has that horse has left the barn, but it prances around proudly mocking us. Is a mocking horse related to a stalking horse or a rocking horse? Or, and iron horse? Eleanor Roosevelt would never mock ones horse.
oltmanndOf course! I feel so foolish.....
Well, I wasn't gonna say anything...but...
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.