Your economic ideas are interesting. You should publish them in a peer-reviewed economics journal. They are so contrary to the dominant thinking of economists, that you are sure to win a Nobel Prize, if you’re right. It would be like the Intelligent Design guys turning out to be right afterall!
They have nuclear weapons, we’d never invade them. We only invade nations we think can’t effectively fight back.
But I don’t think that CEO competition is likely to happen. American CEOs are pretty much a closed caste who all know each other, went to the same schools, and appoint each other to the CEO position. The American aristocracy, really.
Are those two European countries Andora and Lichtenstein?
Not just the Caiman Islands. And not just American companies. I really think all developed countries should get together and offer these tiny islands a deal: they join the EU/US/etc and get reliable aid so that they don’t need to engage in such illicit activities. In return, their tax shelters get shut down. Time for the aristocrats to rejoin society.
Further to the discussion on offshoring…
If the US isolates itself economically, that means that US companies aren’t going to be able to compete on the world market. Take a look at a company like Intel. It gets more than 50% of its revenue from outside the US. If it had to recall all the manufacturing jobs to the US, it couldn’t compete with foreign companies that would be setting up packaging and testing facilities in Malaysia, the Phillipines and China (and other places). So, one of our best high tech companies get sliced in half right off the bat. US cars that are “made in the USA” have lots of sub-assemblies made outside the US. Take that away, and you can forget about selling Fords and GMs in Europe.
Everything will cost more in the US, and our exports of manufactured goods will almost completely dry up. You lose some of the economies of scale because the US is a smaller market than the entire world.
We have 300M people in the US. We can’t compete against the rest of the 6B odd people in the world if it’s us against them. They depend on the US a lot, but they don’t need us. Companies in other countries would love to take the place of companies like Intel, Apple, GE and Motorola, to name just a few of the thousands of companies that would be shut out of the world market.
This is so basic to economic theory that anyone not understanding it needs to get himself to an economics class. Either that, or (like I said earlier) dazzle the world with your new economic theories, and step up to get your Noble Prize.
This sounds really fantastic to me. I look forward to a world where the brainpower of China and India is working towards making my world better.
I don’t understand why anyone would have a problem with this.
Virtually every cool thing I own was invented in another country; cars were invented (more or less) in Germany, microprocessors are American, books are Chinese (paper) and German (printing), electric light is the work of Edison with help from the folks who figured out electricity. Beer was invented somewere in the Middle East, coffee probablhy Ethiopia, and thank God for both. The steel that makes the building I live in and so many other things I enjoy was invented, in its modern form, in England.
I don’t feel improverished for those things having been invented elsewhere.
They will have the inventions of the future and they’ll live with them.
Meanwhile we Americans will live with age old technology and live in poverty. This is happening right now. The rest of the world has had bullet trains for decades and we’ve yet to build even one, and have you seen the kind of cell phones they have overseas? They put ours to shame. Our roads here are falling apart. American worker salaries are not keeping up with inflation.
We’re becoming a third world country.
Are these the same economists that promised us increased prosperity through sending jobs overseas, an increased prosperity that has never happened? Are these the same rocket scientists that called OTHER people “Doctor Doom” and “chicken littles” when they predicted the financial meltdown?
Those peer reviewed economics journals have a piss poor record of calling things correctly. I think I’ll pass on that load of claptrap, and your obsequious sycophant mentality as well, thank you very much.
Oh God, you call this ‘insight’? That word does not mean what you think it does.
If Intel keeps up the way it’s going, it’s going to be getting 75% of its revenue outside the the US. Or worse than that, a company in India or China is going to rise up using Intel’s stolen intellectual property and put Intel out of business with knockoffs, which is already happening to other companies because of China. If you believe I am wrong give do yourself a nice helping of clue++: read up on Cisco vs Huawei for a primer.
Your theory about not being able to sell Fords and GMs in Europe is also wrong. Japanese companies sell vehicles worldwide and they’re more expensive than Fords or GMs. Their edge is quality. Those foreign cheap labor nation parts that Ford and GM use are holding them back, along with their low gas mileage.
Plus, I also did not say cut trade with Europe. I specifically said China and India, and other low wage, pollution-happy nations. I’d arrange for Western democracies like Canada and Europe and the United States to lower trade barriers with each other.
Our exports? Hello, we’re running a massive DEFICIT against China and India. Our export level with them is deep in the NEGATIVE. Do your math, for God’s sake! Losing a negative means a positive gain. 100 minus -360. WTF. Where do you get these “theories” from?
Look, listen closely. Andy Grove, the founder of Intel, has condemned offshoring.
American workers are already shut out of the world market. They’ve got nothing to lose. At the rate we’re going American workers won’t even be able to afford foreign goods.
The US dollar is headed for a collapse the way things are going. When that happens a natural import tariff that would make Smoot-Hawley look tame in comparison, will be erected: it’s called hyper inflation of the cost of imported goods. When the dollar becomes worth zero internationally, the price of oil will go to hundreds of dollars a barrel. That will make international shipping so expensive that no one will be able to afford any goods from overseas. Did you in all your reading of Von Mises shrink-wrapped economic theory read about this part? That day is coming.
Your lack of understanding of the proven consequences of your theories and your lack of understanding of how wrong these “peer reviewed journals” have been in calling things, is downright appalling. Your math is off. You’re definitely not up to speed on modern history. The leaders of the very companies you tout here have condemned your theories. You seriously need to start over.
Because offshoring is why Americans don’t have jobs. It’s why our tax base is so low. The trade deficits it causes has put America deeply into debt and condemned our currency to inevitable collapse.
You will feel impoverished when you realize that a great deal of that technology doesn’t even reach America. You’ll feel even more impoverished when you lose your job and realize that because of offshoring we have 5 people fighting for every available job out there.
Then when the US dollar collapses (and this is now inevitable) because American workers lack the money to service the debt burden their nation has been saddled with, you will be unable to afford all those goods produced elsewhere because it’ll cost a fortune to ship them here.
If Ireland was taking a reflationary approach to its economy it might well have been able to borrow. Bond markets tend to prefer lending to such countries, for the obvious reason that an economy that has money in it is more likely to return that money to its investors.
By stimulating the economy, putting people back to work and collecting taxes from them again, we would also reduce the deficit and therefore the need to borrow. This doesn’t even seem to have occurred to our government, even though their own think tank has pointed it out.
We also have the alternative of dipping into the National Pension Reserve Fund. They’re finally starting to talk about this but it could have been done yonks ago.
And finally, we have the alternative of not pouring €30 billion into a failed bank. This is what gets me angriest about the austerity measures. Let’s be real here - they aren’t being implemented to save the economy. They’re being implemented in order to bail out Anglo Irish and its bondholders.
The problem for Greece was that they couldn’t borrow any more money. They also wanted to carry on with their gigantic deficit – it just was not possible. The latest attempt to sell Irish bonds could only be carried through when the rates were set very high (6.2% for eight year bond) – if the rates keep climbing in this way soon Ireland will not be able to raise any more money either.
But I entirely agree that failed banks should be allowed to go bankrupt. Other, and more deserving, banks will replace them. That’s the nature of capitalism. The National Irish Bank (and Northern Bank) are actually owned by the Danish Danske Bank – I wonder if you’ve spend a shitload of Irish taxpayer money to help Danish stockowners realise a nice profit.
“A 1990 survey of economists employed in the United States found that more than 90 percent generally agreed with the proposition that the use of tariffs and import quotas reduced the average standard of living.” http://research.stlouisfed.org/publications/review/04/09/Poole.pdf
“Though it creates winners and losers, the broad consensus among members of the economics profession in the U.S. is that free trade is a large and unambiguous net gain for society.[13] [14] In a 2006 survey of American economists (83 responders), “87.5% agree that the U.S. should eliminate remaining tariffs and other barriers to trade” and “90.1% disagree with the suggestion that the U.S. should restrict employers from outsourcing work to foreign countries.”[15]”
“Quoting Harvard economics professor N. Gregory Mankiw, “Few propositions command as much consensus among professional economists as that open world trade increases economic growth and raises living standards.”” Free trade - Wikipedia
Just read any textbook introduction to this topic. It will explain the benefits of trade more clearly than I could do here. There is no question that your ideas would be horrible for the US economy.
What is this “free trade” of which you speak. I think it would be a good idea! Until we have it, I see no reason to expose our backs so the rest of the world can stab them.
You have shown me a consensus. I already pointed out to you that consensus does not make fact. Case in point the consensus that we weren’t headed for a crash with the housing bubble.
They agree with this but there is no proof of it.
In fact there is counter proof all over the place. Tens of millions of jobs lost to offshoring, for one. Declining wages and standards of living, for two.
Show me facts, not opinions.
Yet offshoring has resulted in lower living standards, tens of millions of lost jobs and now as a result we have 40 million Americans living off food stamps.
You’re citing people who agree with a system that has no proof that it actually works and a lot of proof that it doesn’t.
You’re bullshitting now.
History itself is showing that offshoring jobs is killing this country.
When the US dollar collapses a monster trade barrier called hyper inflation of imported goods prices will end trade with China anyway. What do your economists and books have to say about that?
All your cited authority figures have gotten a multitude of critical trends wrong over the last decade. Our foreign-held debt has gone up. Unemployment has been high as hell (though they kept masking it during the Bush years by ignoring the number of unemployed who’ve given up looking for work because there isn’t any work to be had). Innovations are moving overseas; America’s “innovation economy” is sputtering.
The welfare state is growing because tens of millions of Americans cannot find work no matter how hard they try. That’s facts, dude. What do your almighty textbooks and economists say to that? That we need to create jobs by sending them overseas? That hasn’t worked.
You have failed to show how offshoring has been a net creator of equal paying jobs. All we’ve gotten out of offshoring is a rise in low paying jobs, and not even enough of those to support our growing population. What do your almighty books and economists have to say about that?
Okay instead of coming up with lame “appeal to authority / numbers” fallacies, how about we directly address the dangers of offshoring and show that these dangers have not been realized?
If you disagree with this, then prove that this is untrue.
I find it interesting that the objection to free trade and ‘offshoring’ comes from a portion of the left with a strong nationalist streak. The debate is whether free trade has been good for the US. It unquestionably has raised the standard of living throughout Asia and India. The low wage jobs with poor working conditions replaced starvation and no jobs and gave rise to a middle class where none previously existed. Free trade is a net positive for the world.
I doubt posters like Jacquelope see it this way, but by saying things like we should stop trading with low wage countries they casually suggest collapsing a few third world economies. That doesn’t matter though because it isn’t his problem and the Chinese and Indians should take care of their own.
But it has been a net negative for America.
Offshoring has resulted in the stagnation of American wages and the skyrocketing of our debt.
40 million Americans are on food stamps now. A lot of that is due to offshoring.
Why do you insist that we should care about the rest of the world when our own country is stricken? That is akin to a family sacrificing to feed the poor when their own kids are starving.
Why do we have to give up our prosperity to enrich others? As much as you accuse me of nationalism you are guilty of defending parasitism.
The world has left America behind. Who’s going to look out for our workers? Can you answer this?
You suggest that we should not take care of our own even while they are taking care of their own.
If I’m being nationalist then you are being racist against America.
And then the next sentence…
That sure looks a lot more like an opinion than it does a fact.
Offshoring did not start with automobile manufacturing or machine tool industries which resulted in IT, programmers, engineering and middle and upper class occupations gone from the US. It did not start with call services going to India. It was back when textiles manufacturing was removed from our shores. we didn’t care because the majority of those jobs were not high paying and skillful. Our attitude was , so what, thats not us. But now it has become us. People with degrees and skills are in trouble. Now it begins to matter.
It is too late. Those jobs are not coming back. They have found people who will do it for a third of the price. They found locations that will allow no unions and eliminate regulation and environmental laws. Should we follow those rules to get them back?
Unemployment will be a permanent part of Americas future. Wages will drop because the competition for jobs will be fierce. The future looks grim for the mass of American workers. The country has fundamentally changed.
Ask and you shall receive.
Offshoring to China is depressing US wages. Offshoring to higher-wage countries seems to actually benefit us as opposed to offshoring to low wage nations like China. Hmmmmm. That supports my suggestion that we close trade with China and end trade barriers with Europe and Canada.
Offshoring is damaging the wages of IT workers. The net is chock full of this information.
That sounds too much like surrender to me.
I don’t know that word ‘surrender’ very well. 
On economists and free trade, lack of regulations: this is what the conservatives here on the Dope were advocating back before the housing bubble hit. EVERY LAST PROBLEM THAT CAUSED the housing bubble could have been avoided with better regulation. For example: not repealing Glass-Steagal would have kept the banks out of the derivatives market. (Clinton signed it into law, against much objection by his own party members, it was a Republican initiative spearheaded by Phil Gramm, damn him to hell. Stupid-ass triangulation did not keep Clinton from making RUINOUS decisions, just kept him from making unpopular ones.)
The Adjustable Rate Mortgages that led to the Housing Bubble collapse were bad enough, but what REALLY exacerbated the problems were all the very, very, bad decisions made by lenders. It was not just poor judgment, apparently there was some illegality involved, as the banks are now rushing through foreclosures in attempt to clog the regulators with paperwork so they do not discover all the slightly illegal lending practices they were engaging in.
If the regulators had been doing their jobs in the first place, there would have been MANY fewer homes to foreclose on. But hey, quite a ride while it lasted, for the realtors, bankers and financial bad boys, wasn’t it.
And now their good buddies the conservatives are saying we need free markets, not regulations, which makes me think we REALLY need to look at regulating outsourcing.
The Americans who listened to them were damn fools before the Housing bubble recession, and we are doubly damned fools if we pay them the slightest heed now.