greyhoundsBucyrusI understand your explanation that a loss of manufacturing jobs is due to increases in domestic productivity. But the loss of jobs to cheaper foreign labor is an entirely different reason for the loss of manufacturing jobs. And the fact that U.S. manufacturing as a whole happens to be growing does not necessarily mean that we are not losing manufacturing. I would be skeptical of any source that implies that we are not losing any manufacturing. Obviously we are losing some of it to the lower wage countries, although our manufacturing growth may be bigger than the loss. If we were not losing any, the growth would be still greater. Certainly we are sending engineering and design work to India, China, and other low wage countries. U.S. engineers cannot live in the U.S. on the wages of Indian engineers. I agree that loss of manufacturing is not the only thing wrong right now with the economy. Not by a long shot.I don't think anyone has ever said we are not loosing "any". As I said, perfect doesn't exist. There's always going to be change. Factories in Muncie will close. To be succesfull we have to adapt to the changes, not fight the inevitable. The fact is that the US manufacturing segement of the economy is vibrant and growing. (or at least it was before the current economic unpleasantness) That doesn't mean that old factories don't shut down. That doesn't mean that the manufacture of light bulbs won't go overseas. Things change. We can't have "NO" loss. But as long as the gains overcome the losses, we'll be fine. Win some, loose some, some get rained out. If we win more than we loose it'll be OK. And we've been doing that. What do we make here? Well, locomotives for domestic use and export to China, aircraft for domestic use and export all over the world, Cat earthmovers that travel the world. Ford trucks, etc. We're good at it. If anyone is interested I'd reccomend the book "The Box, How the Shipping Container Made the World Smaller and the World Economy Bigger" by Marc Levinson. That's what really changed things. Along with the Internet. Before containerization it was totally impractical to manufacture things such as televisions in far off lands and sell them in the US. The transporation costs provided a trade barrier. Container ships reduced the transportation cost to near zero, eliminated the trade barrier, and made the world economy bigger. Of course, the workers who formerly made the TV's in Bloomington, Indiana didn't appreciate this. But the container ships are reality. Complaining about reality is like complaining about rain. A useless waste of time. The Indian engineers are another reality. They're there. They exist. Before the Internet it was impractical to coordinate the efforts of an engineer working in India with directives from the US. Now it's easy. What do you want? A law against the reailties of the Indian engineers and the Internet? Things have changed. We have to change with them. If we do that we'll be fine. If we try to build a wall around the US it will be a disaster.
BucyrusI understand your explanation that a loss of manufacturing jobs is due to increases in domestic productivity. But the loss of jobs to cheaper foreign labor is an entirely different reason for the loss of manufacturing jobs. And the fact that U.S. manufacturing as a whole happens to be growing does not necessarily mean that we are not losing manufacturing. I would be skeptical of any source that implies that we are not losing any manufacturing. Obviously we are losing some of it to the lower wage countries, although our manufacturing growth may be bigger than the loss. If we were not losing any, the growth would be still greater. Certainly we are sending engineering and design work to India, China, and other low wage countries. U.S. engineers cannot live in the U.S. on the wages of Indian engineers. I agree that loss of manufacturing is not the only thing wrong right now with the economy. Not by a long shot.
Win some, loose some, some get rained out. If we win more than we loose it'll be OK. And we've been doing that. What do we make here? Well, locomotives for domestic use and export to China, aircraft for domestic use and export all over the world, Cat earthmovers that travel the world. Ford trucks, etc. We're good at it.
If anyone is interested I'd reccomend the book "The Box, How the Shipping Container Made the World Smaller and the World Economy Bigger" by Marc Levinson. That's what really changed things. Along with the Internet. Before containerization it was totally impractical to manufacture things such as televisions in far off lands and sell them in the US. The transporation costs provided a trade barrier. Container ships reduced the transportation cost to near zero, eliminated the trade barrier, and made the world economy bigger. Of course, the workers who formerly made the TV's in Bloomington, Indiana didn't appreciate this. But the container ships are reality. Complaining about reality is like complaining about rain. A useless waste of time.
The Indian engineers are another reality. They're there. They exist. Before the Internet it was impractical to coordinate the efforts of an engineer working in India with directives from the US. Now it's easy. What do you want? A law against the reailties of the Indian engineers and the Internet? Things have changed. We have to change with them. If we do that we'll be fine. If we try to build a wall around the US it will be a disaster.
So Greyhounds, it says in your Bio that you are a "Marketing analyst/programer".
Now supposing all your positions in your company were moved to India. Where would you be then?
More importantly, would you still cling to this "concept" of capitalism as you see it?
Bucyrus I understand your explanation that a loss of manufacturing jobs is due to increases in domestic productivity. But the loss of jobs to cheaper foreign labor is an entirely different reason for the loss of manufacturing jobs. And the fact that U.S. manufacturing as a whole happens to be growing does not necessarily mean that we are not losing manufacturing. I would be skeptical of any source that implies that we are not losing any manufacturing. Obviously we are losing some of it to the lower wage countries, although our manufacturing growth may be bigger than the loss. If we were not losing any, the growth would be still greater. Certainly we are sending engineering and design work to India, China, and other low wage countries. U.S. engineers cannot live in the U.S. on the wages of Indian engineers. I agree that loss of manufacturing is not the only thing wrong right now with the economy. Not by a long shot.
I don't think anyone has ever said we are not loosing "any". As I said, perfect doesn't exist. There's always going to be change. Factories in Muncie will close. To be succesfull we have to adapt to the changes, not fight the inevitable. The fact is that the US manufacturing segement of the economy is vibrant and growing. (or at least it was before the current economic unpleasantness) That doesn't mean that old factories don't shut down. That doesn't mean that the manufacture of light bulbs won't go overseas. Things change. We can't have "NO" loss. But as long as the gains overcome the losses, we'll be fine.
greyhoundsNo, I said there was no good reason to subsidize any economic activity/industry. I don't support subsidizing any of them. None, zero, nada, nothing. Not an airline, not milk, not anything. Foot fault my foot.
Ahh but you are still driving, and drinkin milk eh? Do as I say, not as I do. Gotcha.
As to the $0.45/gallon ethanol subsidy not going to the produces... Of course it does. It doesn't matter which member of the distribution channel actually gets the 45 cents from the government. The subsidy receiver uses it to pay his supplier, who then gets the 45 cents and passes it back up the channel. To say it doesn't go the the producer/farmer is basically a shell game.
Don't go much further there Swiftus. Go read the law, current and past, and try again.
Mandated ethanol fuel is a detriment to the US economy. Otherwise there would be no need for a mandate or a subsidy.
Did you fall asleep in 2001/2002? It was either use ethanol, already available and used in many markets, or keep using MTBE, that was proven to contiminate ground water and was banned from use (second time I made reference to this). Sheesh.
As to Brazil, the state department probably says we have a negative trade balance with that country because we buy more from Brazil than they buy from us.
Is that NOT just what I said? Now, exactly why should we go overseas for anything? How does that help our economy? How does that provide jobs here? Maybe I need to ask, what kind of math are you using?
"By many measures, the U.S. freight rail system is the safest, most efficient and cost effective in the world." - Federal Railroad Administration, October, 2009
greyhounds No, I said there was no good reason to subsidize any economic activity/industry. I don't support subsidizing any of them. None, zero, nada, nothing. Not an airline, not milk, not anything. Foot fault my foot. I have been consistant in saying that any limited access road should be funded through tolls. Users pay for what they use. Local road networks are different. 1) It's impractical to toll them. 2) People "use" the local road net even if they don't have a vehicle. Local roads are how emergency services are provided, how utility repair crews access trouble spots, how mail gets delivered, etc. When users pay for what they use, instead of having someone else pick up the tab, it leads to a more efficient use of economic resources. And we don't have any economic resouces to waste. This ethanol pipeline is a classic example. Neither the pipeline or ethanol from corn would exist without a subsidy. This misallocates economic resources and basically wastes them. We can not afford to keep doing that. As to the $0.45/gallon ethanol subsidy not going to the produces... Of course it does. It doesn't matter which member of the distribution channel actually gets the 45 cents from the government. The subsidy receiver uses it to pay his supplier, who then gets the 45 cents and passes it back up the channel. To say it doesn't go the the producer/farmer is basically a shell game. Mandated ethanol fuel is a detriment to the US economy. Otherwise there would be no need for a mandate or a subsidy.
No, I said there was no good reason to subsidize any economic activity/industry. I don't support subsidizing any of them. None, zero, nada, nothing. Not an airline, not milk, not anything. Foot fault my foot.
I have been consistant in saying that any limited access road should be funded through tolls. Users pay for what they use. Local road networks are different. 1) It's impractical to toll them. 2) People "use" the local road net even if they don't have a vehicle. Local roads are how emergency services are provided, how utility repair crews access trouble spots, how mail gets delivered, etc.
When users pay for what they use, instead of having someone else pick up the tab, it leads to a more efficient use of economic resources. And we don't have any economic resouces to waste. This ethanol pipeline is a classic example. Neither the pipeline or ethanol from corn would exist without a subsidy. This misallocates economic resources and basically wastes them. We can not afford to keep doing that.
Let me address your two numbered posts:
1) It's impractical to toll them.
Well, it used to be. But it's actually quite simple now, and many countries are doing such.
2) People "use" the local road net even if they don't have a vehicle. Local roads are how emergency services are provided, how utility repair crews access trouble spots, how mail gets delivered, etc.
Here, ambulances use the limited access roads all the time. They are also used by utility crews and to deliver mail. So they are just as important as your local roads, wouldn't you agree?
But yet, you, like lots of other people, find reasons why the roads should be subsidized, yet nothing else should be. Railroads transport mail. They deliver supplies to utility companies (coal..?) So aren't they just as important?
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
RRKen greyhoundsWhat do you mean "all of a sudden"? I've been upset with the subsidy since the Cater Administration. Really, there's no good reason to subsidize any economic activity/industry. Including farming. Subsidies are just a politically motivated redistribution of wealth. They have an overall negative effect on the national well being. Sure, only the activity you support. From roads and highways, to Airlines, to petrol, to milk, sugar, and corn, all subsidized. And there is more I am sure. So next time you fill up the car, get milk and have cereal, or fly to Bermuda, your activity is being subsidized. I'll call that a foot fault. Sure, folks in Iowa have benefited from the ethanol subsidy. How could they not benefit? The government is literally taking money away from people in New Jersey and giving it to people in Iowa. Yes, there are more jobs in Iowa. But there are also fewer jobs in New Jersey. The job losses in New Jersey will exceed the gains in Iowa. Let me repeat. Of the 5 (five) plants here, 99% (ninety nine percent) of the funds required to build them were from private investors or farmer investors. No ethanol plant receives the 45¢ VEETC, not a penny of it. The credit goes to where ever the registered blender is. The tax credit is passed on to motorists in the form of more cost-effective fuel at the pump. Maybe you could read it that time. As to free trade, it's not and "Ideology" or a "Belief". It's been studied and analyzed by economists for centuries. The people of both the importing nation and the exporting nation experience a net welfare gain by being able to freely exchange goods and services with each other. If you can show otherwise please go right ahead. You'd probably get the Nobel Prize in Economics if you could because you'd prove just about everyone with a PhD in economics has been wrong. I don't think you, or anyone else, can do that.. Then how come the State Department listed our trade with Brazil has a negative balance? Meaning, we purchase more from them than they purchase from us. I find it funny, that the history of the last 50 years or more has been ignored. When whole communities of people lost jobs because of "free trade" and shallow decisions by consumers. I took one semester of Business Management in college. I found it boring, and to say the least, full of experiments, and not realities. What we discussed, never showed up in the real life of management. Those theories would not even work today if attempted.
greyhoundsWhat do you mean "all of a sudden"? I've been upset with the subsidy since the Cater Administration. Really, there's no good reason to subsidize any economic activity/industry. Including farming. Subsidies are just a politically motivated redistribution of wealth. They have an overall negative effect on the national well being.
Really, there's no good reason to subsidize any economic activity/industry. Including farming. Subsidies are just a politically motivated redistribution of wealth. They have an overall negative effect on the national well being.
Sure, only the activity you support. From roads and highways, to Airlines, to petrol, to milk, sugar, and corn, all subsidized. And there is more I am sure. So next time you fill up the car, get milk and have cereal, or fly to Bermuda, your activity is being subsidized. I'll call that a foot fault.
Sure, folks in Iowa have benefited from the ethanol subsidy. How could they not benefit? The government is literally taking money away from people in New Jersey and giving it to people in Iowa. Yes, there are more jobs in Iowa. But there are also fewer jobs in New Jersey. The job losses in New Jersey will exceed the gains in Iowa.
Let me repeat. Of the 5 (five) plants here, 99% (ninety nine percent) of the funds required to build them were from private investors or farmer investors. No ethanol plant receives the 45¢ VEETC, not a penny of it. The credit goes to where ever the registered blender is. The tax credit is passed on to motorists in the form of more cost-effective fuel at the pump. Maybe you could read it that time.
As to free trade, it's not and "Ideology" or a "Belief". It's been studied and analyzed by economists for centuries. The people of both the importing nation and the exporting nation experience a net welfare gain by being able to freely exchange goods and services with each other. If you can show otherwise please go right ahead. You'd probably get the Nobel Prize in Economics if you could because you'd prove just about everyone with a PhD in economics has been wrong. I don't think you, or anyone else, can do that..
I don't think you, or anyone else, can do that..
Then how come the State Department listed our trade with Brazil has a negative balance? Meaning, we purchase more from them than they purchase from us. I find it funny, that the history of the last 50 years or more has been ignored. When whole communities of people lost jobs because of "free trade" and shallow decisions by consumers. I took one semester of Business Management in college. I found it boring, and to say the least, full of experiments, and not realities. What we discussed, never showed up in the real life of management. Those theories would not even work today if attempted.
As to Brazil, the state department probably says we have a negative trade balance with that country because we buy more from Brazil than they buy from us. I can't think of another reason for the state department to say that. I personally have a negative trade balance with Ace Hardware. (I still can't figure out that 3-way switch for my ceiling fan.) I'm not really worried about my trade balance with Ace Hardware. Why are you worried about a negative trade balance with Brazil? (That's a serious question. Think it through. The difference between having a negative trade balance with Ace Hardware and having a negative trade balance with Brazil is..???)
greyhounds It's not that I fail to realize it. It's because it's not happening. We are not loosing our manufacturing base. Please read the Federal Reserve presentation I previously posted.
It's not that I fail to realize it. It's because it's not happening. We are not loosing our manufacturing base. Please read the Federal Reserve presentation I previously posted.
Not loosing, lost. How many TV's made in the States now a days? How many computers? How many switch frogs? Truck side frames? Covered hoppers? Radios? There is a whole list. Including fruit in a jar.
I have no problems with productivity improvements, and technology. But to sell your own citizens down the river for a few bucks today, not caring what happens in 10 or 20 years down the road, is flat out immoral.
Losing our manufacturing base.....I believe so. Right here in Muncie, a well known manufacturing town / city for a hundred years....Now...almost all the massive sized factories are none existent. The one I was associated with was in business for 108 years....The half mile long factory is empty now. Equipment sold and future for the facility......??
Back home, nearby Johnstown, Pa. supported two major steel manufacturing plants, for decades....Bethlem Steel & USS. 25,000 employes at their peak. Almost nothing now.
Anderson, In.....Major automotive parts manufacturing for decades...Another 25,000 jobs for decades.....Nothing now...!
You can't have locations all over our nation trending as these, and say we're not losing our manufacturing base....Just my
Item: Several days ago I needed a light bulb for one of my vehicles...an inside courtesy lamp under the dash....Got it: Made in France...!
Quentin
Ethanol is useless at a refinery. It must be transported to the racks where it is splash blended while being loaded into trucks, those trucks deliver to the retailers. Thus terminals like Sewaren, Linden, Ray (TX), and East Oakland to name a few, can handle such large volumes.
Our rack is 8 miles from the plant, so two or three trucks a day go from the plant to the rack, where it is splash blended.
This might be an interesting link to insert for those interested to look at: Assoc of Oil Pipelines of the American Petroleum Institute. Apr. 2010
http://www.enewsbuilder.net/aopl/e_article000570935.cfm
link to the article: "Increased Ethanol Use Creates Challenges"
"Wider use of pipelines to transport ethanol is problematic for several reasons. It means addressing ethanol’s water affinity problem (ethanol is water soluble meaning it absorbs water). Because water accumulation in pipelines is a normal occurrence (in most cases water enters the system through terminal and refinery tank roofs or can be dissolved in fuels during refinery processes), introducing ethanol into a pipeline risks rendering it unusable as a transportation fuel.
"The second challenge to transporting ethanol by pipeline is the need to address corrosion issues. Ethanol-related corrosion problems can result from how ethanol behaves in the pipe. There is some evidence that ethanol in high concentrations can lead to various forms of corrosion including internal stress corrosion cracking, which is very hard to detect. This damage may be accelerated at weld joints or “hard spots” where the steel metallurgy has been altered."
"While it may be technically possible to address issues relating to transporting ethanol via pipeline, significant investments in new and modified facilities and operational practices would be necessary..."
I think that whever the term 'Challenges' is entered into the conversation, you must also expect that the inferance is referenced to added COSTS for that project. It is relatively untried (new) technology and therefore getting the loan on its own merits is problematic in today's financial environment; so the only entity with appropriately deep pockets now, is UNCLE SAM. Therefore, the need to seek a federally backed, guarenteed load to make the project work... The current admin seems to being closed to taped out, unless the politician can be sold (bought?) I think that it will not get off the ground. Back to the standby position of Tankering ethanol to its refinery users is going to be the core way to do it.
Murray greyhoundsIt's not that I fail to realize it. It's because it's not happening. We are not loosing our manufacturing base. Please read the Federal Reserve presentation I previously posted. You cannot be serious. And as far as the Fed goes, they are part in parcel the cause of why the economy of this country has tanked.
greyhoundsIt's not that I fail to realize it. It's because it's not happening. We are not loosing our manufacturing base. Please read the Federal Reserve presentation I previously posted.
You cannot be serious. And as far as the Fed goes, they are part in parcel the cause of why the economy of this country has tanked.
Yes, I'm serious. So just what did the Federal Reserve do to cause the economy to tank?
What are we manufacturing?
Like I said previous - if you are doing heavy manufacturing, then you are supporting lots of secondary and tertiary level jobs, too. Heavy industrial plants were pretty much their own cities.
But if you're making cute little wall stickers for Walmart, well... not so much.
greyhounds Bucyrus Free trade is a double-edged sword. In a vacuum, it is perfect, but it is not in a vacuum. If all the countries of the world had been competing on a free trade basis since the beginning, we would have a balance of trade today with all goods and services being produced by the most efficient producer and sold on the market at the lowest possible price. But for many reasons this kind of optimally balanced free trade has not been developing worldwide since the beginning. Why is that the U.S. has become a manufacturing giant over the last 150 years while China has only recently begun that trek? There are differences in the distribution of natural resources that might give one country an advantage over another, but I don’ think that explains the difference if economic development between China and the U.S. The more obvious explanation is that we have liberty and free-market capitalism, whereas they are repressed by the shackles of communism. Whatever the explanation, the result is that we have a much higher standard of living and higher wages than China does. Now all of a sudden, with the era of telecommunications and computer data transfer, the communist government of China decides to embrace capitalism as if it were a home business of a dictator. They can instantly buy the machine tools and train up a workforce that can be sustained by their prevailing depressed wages that correspond to their relatively undeveloped status and lower standard of living. Our workforce cannot possibly compete with the Chinese workforce until their wages gradually rise to parity with ours and their standard of living rises accordingly. At the same time, our wages and standard of living will decline in spite of the optimum product pricing of the world free trade model. And because that depressed wage competition includes more than just China, our wages and living standard is likely to fall further than theirs will rise as the wage imbalance seeks equilibrium. So while it is true that world free trade is a perfect economic model that produces the best result for everybody, if it suddenly encounters an unleveled playing field, it can cause damage to the side disadvantaged by that unleveled playing field. With a wage disparity as large as that which exists between the U.S. and most of the third world, the world free trade model could destroy the U.S. while all the while providing us with goods and services at the lowest possible price. No, and nothing is "Perfect". The US manufacturing sector has hit a big bump with the recession. Along with everything else. But before that (and hopefully after that) it was doing just fine. We were not loosing our manufacturing base. Actually, before the recession the US manufacturing sector was growing faster than the overall economy. Manufacturing employment is a different story. And it's not a different story of jobs being sent overseas. It's a story of productivity. "What took 1,000 workers to produce in 1950 takes less than 200 to produce now." (Actually, China has lost a greater percentage of its manufacturing jobs than the US has.) US manufacturing is just going through the same thing US agriculture went through. Productivity improvements allow greater output with fewer workers. That's gonna' happen or we will loose our manufacturing. Can't stop progress. Guys, we just gotta' stick with the facts and reality. From the Federal Reserve prior to the recession: http://www.edcchicago.org/presentations/Manufacturing%20EDC%20080625.pdf
Bucyrus Free trade is a double-edged sword. In a vacuum, it is perfect, but it is not in a vacuum. If all the countries of the world had been competing on a free trade basis since the beginning, we would have a balance of trade today with all goods and services being produced by the most efficient producer and sold on the market at the lowest possible price. But for many reasons this kind of optimally balanced free trade has not been developing worldwide since the beginning. Why is that the U.S. has become a manufacturing giant over the last 150 years while China has only recently begun that trek? There are differences in the distribution of natural resources that might give one country an advantage over another, but I don’ think that explains the difference if economic development between China and the U.S. The more obvious explanation is that we have liberty and free-market capitalism, whereas they are repressed by the shackles of communism. Whatever the explanation, the result is that we have a much higher standard of living and higher wages than China does. Now all of a sudden, with the era of telecommunications and computer data transfer, the communist government of China decides to embrace capitalism as if it were a home business of a dictator. They can instantly buy the machine tools and train up a workforce that can be sustained by their prevailing depressed wages that correspond to their relatively undeveloped status and lower standard of living. Our workforce cannot possibly compete with the Chinese workforce until their wages gradually rise to parity with ours and their standard of living rises accordingly. At the same time, our wages and standard of living will decline in spite of the optimum product pricing of the world free trade model. And because that depressed wage competition includes more than just China, our wages and living standard is likely to fall further than theirs will rise as the wage imbalance seeks equilibrium. So while it is true that world free trade is a perfect economic model that produces the best result for everybody, if it suddenly encounters an unleveled playing field, it can cause damage to the side disadvantaged by that unleveled playing field. With a wage disparity as large as that which exists between the U.S. and most of the third world, the world free trade model could destroy the U.S. while all the while providing us with goods and services at the lowest possible price.
No, and nothing is "Perfect". The US manufacturing sector has hit a big bump with the recession. Along with everything else. But before that (and hopefully after that) it was doing just fine. We were not loosing our manufacturing base. Actually, before the recession the US manufacturing sector was growing faster than the overall economy.
Manufacturing employment is a different story. And it's not a different story of jobs being sent overseas. It's a story of productivity. "What took 1,000 workers to produce in 1950 takes less than 200 to produce now." (Actually, China has lost a greater percentage of its manufacturing jobs than the US has.)
US manufacturing is just going through the same thing US agriculture went through. Productivity improvements allow greater output with fewer workers. That's gonna' happen or we will loose our manufacturing. Can't stop progress.
Guys, we just gotta' stick with the facts and reality.
From the Federal Reserve prior to the recession:
http://www.edcchicago.org/presentations/Manufacturing%20EDC%20080625.pdf
I understand your explanation that a loss of manufacturing jobs is due to increases in domestic productivity. But the loss of jobs to cheaper foreign labor is an entirely different reason for the loss of manufacturing jobs.
And the fact that U.S. manufacturing as a whole happens to be growing does not necessarily mean that we are not losing manufacturing. I would be skeptical of any source that implies that we are not losing any manufacturing. Obviously we are losing some of it to the lower wage countries, although our manufacturing growth may be bigger than the loss. If we were not losing any, the growth would be still greater. Certainly we are sending engineering and design work to India, China, and other low wage countries. U.S. engineers cannot live in the U.S. on the wages of Indian engineers.
I agree that loss of manufacturing is not the only thing wrong right now with the economy. Not by a long shot.
Murray greyhoundsUS manufacturing is just going through the same thing US agriculture went through. Productivity improvements allow greater output with fewer workers. That's gonna' happen or we will loose our manufacturing. Can't stop progress. We are losing our manufacturing base now. You are failing to realize that. Hardly what I would call progress.
greyhoundsUS manufacturing is just going through the same thing US agriculture went through. Productivity improvements allow greater output with fewer workers. That's gonna' happen or we will loose our manufacturing. Can't stop progress.
We are losing our manufacturing base now. You are failing to realize that.
Hardly what I would call progress.
zugmann My question of the day. Sure, you end up with less workers. But then who is left to actually spend money...? We make lots of things, but yet no one to sell the things to (in this country).
That is a good observation. World free trade provides the cheapest goods, but an unleveled playing field reduces the buying power in countries disadvantaged by that disparity. That is the double-edged sword.
My question of the day. Sure, you end up with less workers. But then who is left to actually spend money...? We make lots of things, but yet no one to sell the things to (in this country).
I can never get an answer to that.
And what counts as "manufacturing"? It's one thing to produce plastic bottle lids, and another to produce tanks, airplanes and railcars. But hey, at least we have a rise in service jobs.
Bucyrus...Our workforce cannot possibly compete with the Chinese workforce until their wages gradually rise to parity with ours and their standard of living rises accordingly...So while it is true that world free trade is a perfect economic model that produces the best result for everybody, if it suddenly encounters an unleveled playing field, it can cause damage to the side disadvantaged by that unleveled playing field. With a wage disparity as large as that which exists between the U.S. and most of the third world, the world free trade model could destroy the U.S. while efficiently providing us with goods and services at the lowest possible price.
What troubles me the most is that we in this country are supposed to have the best and the brightest business minds in charge of our capitalist system. Thats the reason for such institutions at Harvard Business School etc is it not?
From the way the US has been trending in the last 30 or so years, I am beginning to wonder if we in fact have the best and brightest capitalists at all.
As a nation, our economic decisions don't seem to indicate that.
dakotafred Hey, Model, please be more careful. I didn't say that; somebody else did. I'm on the other side of the "free trade" fraud.
Hey, Model, please be more careful. I didn't say that; somebody else did. I'm on the other side of the "free trade" fraud.
......My bad........Sorry.
Free trade is a double-edged sword. In a vacuum, it is perfect, but it is not in a vacuum.
If all the countries of the world had been competing on a free trade basis since the beginning, we would have a balance of trade today with all goods and services being produced by the most efficient producer and sold on the market at the lowest possible price.
But for many reasons, this kind of optimally balanced free trade has not been developing worldwide since the beginning. Why is it that the U.S. has become a manufacturing giant over the last 150 years while China has only recently begun that trek? There are differences in the distribution of natural resources that might give one country an advantage over another, but I don’ think that explains the difference in economic development between China and the U.S. The more obvious explanation is that we have liberty and free-market capitalism, whereas they are repressed by the shackles of communism. Whatever the explanation, the result is that we have a much higher standard of living and higher wages than China does.
Now all of a sudden, with the era of telecommunications and computer data transfer, the communist government of China decides to embrace capitalism as if it were a home business of a dictator. They can instantly buy the machine tools and train up a workforce that can be sustained by their prevailing depressed wages that correspond to their relatively undeveloped status and lower standard of living. Our workforce cannot possibly compete with the Chinese workforce until their wages gradually rise to parity with ours and their standard of living rises accordingly.
At the same time, our wages and standard of living will decline in spite of the optimum product pricing of the world free trade model. And because that depressed wage competition includes more than just China, our wages and living standard are likely to fall further than theirs will rise, as the imbalance seeks equilibrium.
So while it is true that world free trade is a perfect economic model that produces the best result for everybody, if it suddenly encounters an unleveled playing field, it can cause damage to the side disadvantaged by that unleveled playing field. With a wage disparity as large as that which exists between the U.S. and most of the third world, the world free trade model could destroy the U.S. while efficiently providing us with goods and services at the lowest possible price.
Modelcar dakotafredFree trade always means more stuff for both sides - it maximizes the production efficiency of both parties - everybody does more of what they do best Fair Trade.....Probably yes....but the "Free Trade" we have now is far from a level playing field. And we seem to be on the "short end" too much of the time...
dakotafredFree trade always means more stuff for both sides - it maximizes the production efficiency of both parties - everybody does more of what they do best
Fair Trade.....Probably yes....but the "Free Trade" we have now is far from a level playing field. And we seem to be on the "short end" too much of the time...
greyhounds As to free trade, it's not and "Ideology" or a "Belief". It's been studied and analyzed by economists for centuries. The people of both the importing nation and the exporting nation experience a net welfare gain by being able to freely exchange goods and services with each other. If you can show otherwise please go right ahead. You'd probably get the Nobel Prize in Economics if you could because you'd prove just about everyone with a PhD in economics has been wrong. I don't think you, or anyone else, can do that..
As to free trade, it's not and "Ideology" or a "Belief". It's been studied and analyzed by economists for centuries. The people of both the importing nation and the exporting nation experience a net welfare gain by being able to freely exchange goods and services with each other. If you can show otherwise please go right ahead. You'd probably get the Nobel Prize in Economics if you could because you'd prove just about everyone with a PhD in economics has been wrong.
I think the burden is on you to show and tell, given 30-some years of growing trade deficits and the hollowing out of our manufacturing sector, to the devastation of vast swatches of the Midwest and Northeast, and the resulting drain of wealth to overseas, including to China, which uses the profits from selling us stuff we used to make for ourselves to buy missiles pointed at us.
The economists who think this is a good deal remind me of the "scientists" lined up behind the belief that carbon dioxide -- 1/10th of 1 percent of our atmospheric gases, of which less than 5 percent is accounted for by Man -- is responsible for "global warming" (which itself has been MIA for nearly 20 years).
I've seen RRs near me saved with "big government money". Railroads that later in life were bale to find new business and become profitable. Luckily they were saved and able to capture that business.
Yes, it is your belief. I don't think outsourcing every job away from this country benefits us a whole. That is my belief. I also believe that subsidies are not always legal theft. Just because something has reports and numbers "proving" it does not make it a fact. You can make statistics show whatever you want. 95% of people know that.
We will never convince each other - so we'll have to agree to disagree. My point is, that there is more than one belief in how government should operate. Neither one is more "right" than the other.
zugmann I wonder if these economists ever leave their office, get their noses out of reports and take a look outside. Pretty sad when we are turning into a service economy. But, hey, free trade. I'm sure someone somewhere benefits. We get it, you don't like subsidies and "big government". That's your belief, and that's fine. But not everyone subscribes to that. PS. Your signature is kind of amusing, though. Railroads never met a subsidy they didn't love. Would they be as effecting and efficient without them...? One can only wonder. PPS. I'm not an economist (obvious, no?), just that I get tired of seeing decent jobs being shipped to countries using slave labor.
I wonder if these economists ever leave their office, get their noses out of reports and take a look outside. Pretty sad when we are turning into a service economy. But, hey, free trade. I'm sure someone somewhere benefits.
We get it, you don't like subsidies and "big government". That's your belief, and that's fine. But not everyone subscribes to that.
PS. Your signature is kind of amusing, though. Railroads never met a subsidy they didn't love. Would they be as effecting and efficient without them...? One can only wonder.
PPS. I'm not an economist (obvious, no?), just that I get tired of seeing decent jobs being shipped to countries using slave labor.
It's not about what I "like" or "dislike". It's about what's real. What's been proven to be true. Some people don't like reality. Some people try to change reality with laws and tariffs. That doesn't work.
As to railroad subsidies, the Union Pacific did turn down money from California which would have been used to improve clearances over Donner Pass. Good for them.
Freight railroad subsidies pretty much serve to make freight movement less efficient and less effective. They mask the real cost to the economy and encourage waste. Thankfully, in the US they are not significant. But the railroads do have their hands out, just like everyone else. Heck Fire, if the government decided to give me some money, I'd take it. 'Course they'd have to take it away from someone else to give it to me. It wouldn't make any sense and it would make someone else less well off. It would be basically legalized theft on my part. But nobody is going to turn down money obtained through "legal" means.
Murray Know any other good jokes?
Know any other good jokes?
Eleanor Roosevelt walks into a bar with a goat under her arm....
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.