You’re making my point for me - as I’ve pointed out to you and others NUMEROUS TIMES.
China has protectionist tariffs galore and yet they seem to be doing fine. Their economy is growing and they are becoming more prosperous. Does China exist in an economic vacuum? No. But they are living proof that tariffs work. Clearly.
As will income to match.
For the last 10 years we’ve had inflation outpacing wages. So prices have been rising faster than income despite offshoring.
But I’ve pointed out and documented this numerous times.
Not true. Wages will go up to support a demand for these goods and services.
History has already proven your theories to be untrue. They just had a big fat labor strike in China (where they have tons of tariffs, mind you) and wages went up as a result. Unskilled labor is not decreasing in price there.
Where exactly do you get these theories from? Certainly not history.
We’re already behind as it is. China is producing the new top rate tech in solar photovoltaic cell manufacturing. We’re not. India is leading now in biotech research. That’s the so-called knowledge industry people here keep saying is the next big thing. But again, this has been pointed out to the SDers many, many times. Usually, though, they’ve got nothing to say at all when these valid examples are put forth.
We’re falling behind simply because we’re sending bleeding edge jobs overseas and providing a hollowed out job market for new grads. Whatever the big thing is now will be gone overseas in 5 years.
Jobs to service the US market are American jobs.
And I’m glad to say that I’m part of the political movement to force politicians to understand that.
You keep saying this and no matter how many times, in no less than 4 different threads, does it make it true. Keep capitalizing all you want no one is making your point for you, but you consistently fail to make yours.
And you know China is doing fine, how exactly? Percentage GDP growth? You’ve probably ignored it before from other posters, so I’ll repeat: per capita GDP in China is worse than Albania (another government controlled economic shithole). Total output comes from and largely stays with about 100m people. The other 1.2 BILLION live in some form of unskilled labor (think sweatshops or day laborer) or subsistence farming. The last statistic I read on this, when I was in China, in late November, is that China would have to grow its Economy by 300% while the US stood still to equal US parity.
. And has been pointed out to you, there is this thing called a global economy. Other markets are competing for the same goods. However, this is a short answer and to go into how often you are wrong will make me miss my flight. But, the short answer is we are simply better and more efficient producers with better access to capital. We do more with less people and this thing called a “recession” is putting and a damper on jobs at the moment, another little fact you like to ignore.
False. When, for example, iPhones and 3D televisions (think any good that is ubiquitous in the US, but is largely rare in a developing world) rise to 4-5 times their current costs (guesstimate) demand will drop. All the US employees that represent the previous demand from the lower price levels will be fired. If you knew anything about running a business, you would know that if the manufacturer can’t pass on his costs to the consumer then he would be better off not risking the capital because it would achieve better returns and subject to less risk in a secured bond. That is the economic reality not mis-reading propaganda that you are providing.
First off, your favorite whipping horse China provides some unreliable statistics and severely controls the labor and numerous markets. Second, China is really a nascent economy that can afford to put tariffs up. Why? Because the economic damage caused by the tariffs are not much worse and in some geographies better than the sweatshop/subsistence farming that was there before. That’s how shitty things truly are in China. I’ve been going there once a year for the last 4 years. The further inland I go, the more depressed I get. To give you some idea, the average middle class citizen of the 100m live in 1985 (or so) but with (censored) access to the Internet, and better TVs. The average Chinese person outside trading provinces lives on something like $1000 GDP. That average is skewed because of the richer coastal areas. Those people inland really don’t produce anything of value. It’s like putting Warren Buffet in a room of 10000000000 unemployed and saying that the average person produces $1000 of GDP.
Yes, because history and economics are so similar. I have a degree in economics from the U of Chicago. If you know anything of UofC’s curriculum, then you know that i know my history very well thank you. Do you honestly think an advanced free market economy can emulate a nascent, government controlled,currency pegged economy? Seriously?
. Oh good you’re bringing up India, another 3rd world shithole. Clearly another standard of living that Americans should emulate. I literally just got off a plane from there and while they are making great progress, they are lagging behind the US as well. But, they are a great example of what free trade is doing for them, creating a middle class, growing tax revenue to build infrastructure and education (well with the money that isn’t siphoned off to graft and corruption). They are making themselves more attractive to foreign investment and markets for foreign products, like US jeans and cars. The US isn’t falling behind, the rest of the world is catching up. We want that. We want more markets to sell and trade to. We want more labor and people to consume, invent, refine, and then automate. The best your worldview can hope for is stagnation.
And I will explain this to you again. Tariffs have resulted in EXPLOSIVE growth for China. It has benefitted them far worse than it could ever have hurt them. If China had no had any tariffs they wouldn’t have those 100m skilled labor people. They wouldn’t have crap at all.
You’re harping on the fact that per capital income in China is worse than Albania. You’ve made that point 100 times. But what you are intentionally ignoring is the fact that China’s economy has vastly improved from what it was before, and tariffs are part of why.
These improvements have come at the cost of million of Americans being out of work. If we had tariffs against them they would not have those jobs. We would.
And I will remind you again of why you are wrong. You’re wrong in saying this is a global market. It is nothing of the sort. Sure, jobs and goods and services can move globally… but workers cannot. The world is competing for jobs to service the American market. Americans are locked out of the global jobs market. There’s nowhere else for us to go. Everyone can come here for work or capture our jobs by lowballing us on wages, but other nations won’t let us emigrate there. Not without some huge expenses. Canada, for instance, costs $30,000 to emigrate there if you don’t have relatives.
Global economy? BULLSHIT.
And another fact you intentionally ignore is that if we hadn’t had so much offshoring we wouldn’t BE in this recession. You keep having that pointed out to you and you keep not even addressing it. You also won’t address the fact that our economy was heavily propped up by consumer debt which is what kept a lid on the problems that sank us in 2007-2008. That consumer debt bubble is gone - and the real problems of depressed wages due to globalism have come home to roost.
Hell, the rosiest estimates put on the cost of offshoring is that we lose 2% of employment as a result. Do you realize what our unemployment rate would be right now with JUST a 2% drop?
As it stands nobody’s even thinking of a timetable for when we’ll drop below 9%. And going back to 5%? LOL. Just… LOL. That’ll probably never happen if we stay the course.
Whose guesstimate? Yours? Cite?
What US employees? Where we stand right now we’ve got nothing to lose. Exactly which one of these products is made in the US again?
The pro-offshoring camp on here already rigorously argued that cost of living stays constant regardless. That’s because wages would RISE. You. Just. Keep. FORGETTING. That. PART!
Your entire argument here is based on the ignorant assumption that consumer electronics prices exist in (here’s your favorite word!) a vacuum. If those prices go up then wages will also go up. Plus you forgot to include such things as layaway…
And we have about 16 million people here who are living on $0. Your entire argument is based on the idea that America’s economy is better off idling that many people and supporting them with tax dollars - until Republicans decide to cut them loose - rather than putting them to work.
Yes, you’ve said it a million times, we’ve got 16 million people put out of work because of a recession. But what you keep not getting is that the recession was CAUSED by 10 years of new entrants into the workforce exceeding job growth and the need for consumer debt to fuel spending habits… debt which has now been called in. Your own people say offshoring added 2% to those numbers. That’s not trivial… and it’s also a lowball estimate.
Yes you did quite well in reciting economic theory and passing tests. Economists also told us that stagflation couldn’t happen - right before it did, of course. The whole world also knew that this housing crash wasn’t gonna happen, except for a few Dr. Doom’s and chicken littles.
I guess I don’t need to remind you that economics is not an exact science… if it can be considered a science at all. Whoops. I just did.
At the expense of wiping out ours.
Oh and no… the rich aren’t growing faster than the poor. That hasn’t been happening at LEAST for the last 10 years.
Great deal - except Americans are not allowed jobs to make such things for export. Instead they’re in the unemployment line. And they will be for YEARS to come. Yay, India. Too bad for our middle class - or for America’s poor, who now (and for many decades to come) have fewer and fewer chances to get into the middle/upper class.
Now you understand why your arguments are being laughed at by most Americans. And why you’re winning, like, ZERO points here. The proof is in the pudding and the pudding you’re selling is quite rotten. You might as well get used to more and more people like me telling you it’s rotten: it’s gonna be one long, hard decade for you and your keyboard if you continue to make points like this.
Who the fuck is “we”? WTF do you get this “we” from? There is no “we” involved here when it requires the continual shrinking of our middle class. So… correction: YOU want that.
Who’s “we”? What jobs does this produce for America’s working class? American workers are LITERALLY missing out completely on this so-called global market. WTF are American workers getting a paycheck from exporting?
And the best your worldview can hope for is economic collapse.
We’re being forced to cut welfare for the poor and unemployment extensions will stop soon - just in time to throw easily 13-14 million Americans (or perhaps even the full 16-17 at the rate we’re going) to the wolves. We have budgets all over the country in the red with no end in sight.
You’re going to have exploding deficits and a collapsing dollar or serious unrest on your hands in America. If the dollar tanks it’s lights out for India and China - and that has been pointed out to you numerous times, too.
Maybe someone who you don’t have ignore will ask you the same question and you’ll actually answer (I’m not holding my breath), but do you have a cite for this incredible assertion? China’s economic growth is because of tariffs? Hell, even a large percentage of it is because of this? Seriously? Where do you get this ridiculous idea from and, more importantly, can you back it up with some fucking facts?
And you are ignoring the fact that the role of tariffs has been minor at best in China’s growth. You have also ignored the fact that China isn’t in the same economic boat as the US, and that what China can get away with doesn’t automatically mean that the US could do exactly the same and have it work exactly the same.
Here you seem to have backed off of your previous assertion that tariffs were a major reason for China’s success so, what ‘part’ of it is played by tariffs? Can you perhaps define what ‘part’ of it is due to Chinese tariffs with some of those cite things? Because your bald faced assertions in this post mean absolutely nothing, especially since you don’t seem to have a clue what you are talking about.
China’s relatively rapid economic rise has more to do with the fact that they have a very large unskilled (and extremely cheap) labor force, their willingness to peg their currency to substantially below the US dollar, their rather casual attitudes to things like regulation of their industries, a profligate use of energy and an orientation to the low hanging fruit of manufacturing. Tariffs are well down the list, and they are a two edged sword for the Chinese…as they were for the Japanese when they tried to use the same tactics.
<Deleted the rest since I’m talking to a wall here…and a clueless wall at that. There is simply no benefit to engaging with a poster that not only has me on ignore but also doesn’t seem to have a clue about the subject and simply keeps repeating the same baseless bullshit and making the same populist assertions out of their ass>
Yes there is. These are jobs that pertain to the production of goods and services for sale in the American market. And they were ours to lose for the last CENTURY or more.
India and China’s entire success (defined as their race upward from the very depths of poverty) is BASED on the fact that they UNDERSTAND this and we have FORGOTTEN it.
Great way to debate a point. “No, you’re wrong.” I can see that the rest of this post is going to follow the same stellar logic.
First off, this is the first time I’ve had a chance to respond directly to one of your ignorance filled posts. Second, have you ever considered how bad economically China was before they started opening their borders to trade? There would seriously be 1 Billion Chinese working at the level of subsistence farming, except those working in machine shops to support the government bureaucracy (can’t have diplomats traveling around on rickshaws). The tariffs protect their industries because every industry in China is a nascent industry. It’s hard to go much worse, so of course there is going to be improvement despite the effects of tariffs. Seriously, has that idea never crossed your mind?
Again, I don’t know who you are arguing against. I made that point once. I agree that tariffs have improved China. It’s because China really couldn’t have fallen much farther down the economic ladder. Unlike the other third world nation hell holes, China has organization and natural resources, some form of infrastructure, and most importantly, isn’t fighting a war within its own borders. So, please don’t compare China to any African dictatorship. Why don’t you compare it to its neighbors who have freer trade and have a much larger GDP per capita. Again, I agree tariffs can help countries in these situation. What I vehemently disagree, which is a point you keep eluding which many other keep calling you out on, is that the US is not in the same position to benefit from such a strategy. As has been pointed out to you with vast amounts of reason is that the protections and benefits offered by tariffs completely outweigh the economic damage it brings. Even China doesn’t get to escape economic reality. In order to continue along their path, they have to resort to currency manipulation, they have to buy debt from its largest trading partners, the economic success is only limited to those few (well, those millions) along the coastal and eastern provinces, totally ignoring inland China (except for companies like mine that are abandoning the provinces driving further inland, to take further advantage of cheap labor, and do away with, hopefully, the need to to put up worker dorms and other communist stylings).
I’m wrong, really? Please give your caps key a rest. Should we have borderless countries and no immigration control? Really? Because that’s what you’re asking if you bring up the canard that workers cannot travel. Of course workers can travel. When I was working in the law firm, associates were given the opportunity to travel and work and possibly emigrate to the UK (magic circle firms). Not sponsored? Sure, it takes time, and skilled workers can travel easier than non-skilled. My classmates from university who got their medical degrees now have jobs all over the globe. I meet new lawyers transferring in all the time (why, I don’t know, but that’s another post). Btw, I calling bullshit on your $30k emigration fees (unless you mean some other currency than USD). Please check out this calculator. I put in a family of 4, two adult workers and two kids, and it came out to be $4880. https://services3.cic.gc.ca/efee/efee.do So, please stop with the hyperbole. You are only making your arguments worse.
Ok, now you’re just conflating ideas. Did off-shoring cause/force millions of Americans and thousands of banks to lend and borrow from each other, investing in a real estate bubble that was the primary cause of the latest economic downturn? If, so, seriously, please explain the logic. What does consumer debt have to do with off-shoring or tariffs? Consumer debt is first and foremost in the hands of the consumer. If I can follow your (lack of) logic, does it go something like: Off-shoring and free trade have caused american jobs to disappear, so…[now here is the difficult part]…so…so…in order to keep their wealth they took what credit they had and bought heavily into the real estate market? Ok, that can’t be right. A little help here please.
Umm…8-9% unemployment? Did I win a prize?
The materials for the iphone are pretty stable all over the world. The only factors are costs (or return on investment) for the developer/manufacturer (often, and as is true with the iPhone, the same person, Apple, Inc.), and labor. The manufacturer gets paid last, along with the stock holders and any other entrepreneur or risk-taker. Labor is usually the largest cost component to any business. The average Chinese worker makes something like $300/month (June 7, NYT that I happen to have in my office), the average worker in the US makes $745 per week (http://www.bls.gov/news.release/wkyeng.nr0.htm). Granted that’s all workers, but since China’s workforce is far and away factory, the average US salary can drop much further. But even at $400/week ($10/hr), that’s still 4 times the rate that the average Chinese person gets. Hence, a 4-5 times increase (let’s not forget taxes, shipping, and handling) in price. There’s your cite. Seriously, this is Business 101. If you cannot comprehend this, there is little arguing with you. Maybe an introduction to business course would help clear up a lot of confusion, friendly suggestion.
Oh, good, more punctuation to abuse. Why are wages rising? Seriously, why? Where is this money coming from? Assuming the demand is still there for a 4-5x increase, it wouldn’t be at the same level of demand at the lower price level, or do you completely ignore supply and demand curves as well?
emphasis mine If prices go up, people buy less. People buying less results in…wait for it…less jobs! If you need an example, look at global economic activity from end of 2007 to present. Seriously, where is this logic coming from. Look at the bolded and underlined area: “If prices go up, wages go up?” Really, really? (Where is the shakes head smiley?) Call the Nobel committee, they are seriously missing out on such nuanced thinking in Economics. Ok, if wages go up as prices go up, why isn’t everything $1M? Hey, we would all be millionaires?
Subsistence farming is $0 for all intents and purposes. My theory is based on free markets and strong property laws.
The unemployment rate for the last 10 years was under 6% (5% really, but I’m giving you leeway). So, for 10 years, one would think that unemployment would steadily be rising, but no, it was steady. So, think again for another cause than new entrants.
Could it be that the rich have access to capital and automation thereby giving them more opportunity to reap the rewards of productivity? If a worker with a hammer is even 2x more effective than a worker without a hammer, should we pay that worker more because he has been given a hammer (that is owned the capitalist, by the way)? There’s a word for that, btw, I’ll give you a hint, it sounds like Luddite.
Again, you ignore the fact that other markets will exist with the emergence of wealth in other nations. Even China is an untapped market. Most Chinese cannot even afford the items they make. Has that even occurred to you (another benefit of tariffs)? They have 25% of their new graduates unemployed (go tariffs) (China’s growing army of unemployed graduates - World Socialist Web Site). Seriously, go to China and see what the average factory salary gets you, it’s not much. This is what will happen if, God forbid, your theories are put into place. Yeah, sure, we’ll all have jobs, we’ll also see our standard of living at best stagnate, if not overall decline.
If we were to follow your “logic” it means America stole jobs that rightly belonged to other countries. Think about all those jobs lost to the US while it still had slavery. Think about the growth in industrial manufacturing after WWII, all jobs that should have been in Europe but couldn’t because both their factories and their economy was in ruins.
I grew up in Canada where everything we had was made in the US, which would mean that the US stole jobs from Canadians. We’d like those back now.
Lastly, India and China’s success isn’t based on the good things they do but the bad. Those are two countries that don’t give a shit about their “workers.” The jobs created there are not jobs you want in the US. They involve working in insanely dangerous conditions, without any safeguards or regulations, for very little money. It’s just barely enough money that they can now afford the Indian/Chinese lifestyle, if they work two of those jobs.
Putting in the tariffs and protectionist policies you propose would do nothing to help the American worker. If you want those jobs back you need to race to the bottom–remove minimum wage, eliminate environmental regulations, have government control over land use, redirect water supplies, and agree to turn a blind eye to human rights abuses.
India and China have a fast growing economy not because of tariffs but because they started from nothing. Any growth is fast growth. What adult in their right mind would look at a baby and decide “if I eat 4 bottles of formula per day I can grow that fast too.”
“Ignorance filled posts”. Great way to debate a point - especially considering how rarely you back up anything you say.
You’re harping on the fact that per capital income in China is worse than Albania. You’ve made that point 100 times. No, wait. Make this 101 times.
You have failed to show that tariffs protecting manufacturing jobs will make us poorer. Your ignorance of the basic fact that wages rise in that scenario suggests you really aren’t qualified for this discussion.
And you have failed to show how the US is not in the same position to benefit from such a strategy. So you will continue to be challenged on this. By me, and countless others. Get used to it, dude. America is no longer buying these flimsy arguments you guys keep pushing.
The protections and benefits offered by tariffs outweigh the economic damage it brings? Did you really mean to say that? LOL.
In other words your company is actually bringing jobs to the people inland, basically helping to solve the very problems you say China has.
They have borderless countries as far as jobs and goods are concerned.
How many factory workers do you think can just pack up and move to China?
Unskilled laborers stream into this country. You try walking into China from any direction, skilled or not. Even Mexico is hard on undocumented newcomers.
America is a lot nicer toward such things than any other country.
That’s not as great a hyperbole as you think. I was actually looking at the settlement funds where you have to prove you have $11,000 in funds if you’re a skilled worker.
Actually it’s called studying a chain reaction of events.
Wow. Just wow.
People didn’t make as much money as they did before because of the changes in the economy, so they maintained their lifestyle by using credit cards and refinancing.
Your lack of deduction skills is no surprise here. That Americans took what credit they had to speculate on real estate or buy homes they really could not afford. Most people realize this - if you can’t, then I can’t help you, nor am I interested in trying.
Speaking of Business 101…
I wanted you to set this trap up for yourself and you did it splendidly.
Arithmetic 101 says that if you lost your manufacturing job and are earning $0 you will have $0 to buy a $300 iPod and you will never earn enough to get that iPod as long as you are unemployed. However if you are earning $745 per week, which comes out to $2980 a month, how many iPods is that if the iPod is now $1500 according to your estimates? Basic arithmetic should help you understand why you are wrong.
Which is something I keep calling you guys out on and you keep evading: what good is cutting prices if you lose your job as a direct result?
If you lose your job you buy nothing. Because you’re earning nothing. Which costs even MORE jobs.
One has to wonder where your logic is coming from. We’re in the mess we’re in because people stopped spending. Because they couldn’t use credit as much as they used to and that made them fall back to their real income - which is less than it was 10 years ago.
Don’t get on me about it. Your own people on here rigorously argued that this is the case. The cost of living, according to them, has stayed roughly the same since at least the 1950s. Prices and wages have followed each other.
Your theory is also based on the notion that because subsistence farmers are earning $0 (I guess their food is now worthless, you musta learned that in business 101), the fact that sixteen million Americans have no jobs now and easily six million of them haven’t had jobs for over half a year, and the BLS is now extending their standards to measure people who’ve been out of work for FIVE YEARS… doesn’t matter.
That’s the problem with your comically ignorant theories. Americans who are put out of work by offshoring don’t matter to you. Your compatriots here respond with “so what?” or “this is just market efficiency reallocating people to do something else”. What everyone AROUND you sees is “we’re being reallocated to sit on our asses with no jobs begging for welfare to survive.”
That’s because the BLS was discounting people who were unemployed for more than 2 years. They’re actually trying to change that right now because they’re realizing the problem is far bigger than they’ve been fooling themselves into believing. No, really. This change just came up in the news TODAY. December 28. This has been a problem for a decade but this latest downturn is forcing the BLS to really take a hard look at the issue. And for the last 10 years the middle class has also been shrinking, and the ranks of the poor have been exploding.
Oh, don’t you worry about Luddites. At this rate you’ll have more to worry about when people have no money to buy stuff and these employers who’ve been shipping jobs overseas find a decimated market in the U.S.
Don’t worry though, the middle class is exploding in other countries! Want to know which ones? Wow, let’s see if you have a logical explanation for this: it’s the same countries we’re shipping American jobs to.
Again, you won’t have to worry about Luddism. You’re more likely to have to deal with this:
You also run the risk of other problems like America facing an economic collapse - which will destroy China right off the economic map.
Or, worse, civil unrest.
Again, there goes your tortured logic.
If we put 16 million Americans in factories instead of putting them out on the street in tent cities, we’ll fall into decline.
Ayup.
Now you know why this is one fight you will lose. Badly.
very ignorant, when you graduate college in Germany or Sweden I guarantee you nobody has 30,000 in school loans to pay off, no med school grad has 175,000 in debt to pay (the avg. for US med school grads)
there isn’t one citizen in Germany or Sweden who has a 3,000 or 5,000 or 8,000 yearly deductible on their health insurance premium either.
and when the price of gas skyrockets , guess what, they have a well developed public transportation system to choose from if they don’t want to drive. (New yorkers and selected residents of a few large metropolises in the US aside)
it’s amazing what you can do and infastructure you can invest in when you don’t spend half your money on the military. the US should try it once. maybe then we wouldn’t need nets under our bridges to catch falling chunks of concrete.
I could go on and on but I hope you get the picture.
I’ll let you in on a little secret, euros do pay higher taxes (although the highest tax bracket in germany is only 45% compared to 35% here) but they aren’t nickled and dimed on every other little aspect of thier lives.
guess who really needs to catch up?
you mean German companies don’t have to pay for their employees health care?
but they still compete giving a minimum of 4 weeks and usually 5-6 weeks vacation. And the blue collar guys are all union too! :eek:
that’s some perception , you do realize that germany just finished an 8 year span where they lead the world in exports, it wasn’t china or taiwan, even with 300million of us buying as much crap as we can from china but germany that’s lead the world in exports. Apparently there’s quite a demand for their “high priced goods and services” and all this from a country of 80million.
and they manage to give their employees union status, 6 weeks of vacation and a seat on the board as well.
News flash: Canada is getting them back. Thank NAFTA.
Wait. Tech industry jobs in America were not insanely dangerous jobs. Nor were the biotech jobs we used to have in America.
Next?
Says who? With tariffs we can keep the minimum wage, ensure safe workplaces and protect the environment. Tariffs will make it too expensive to import goods or services.
As I said above, a $300 iPod is unreachable to someone who is unemployed (earning $0). But a $1500 iPod is reachable for someone who is earning $2980 (at $745/week) a month. Tariffs would work because of the sheer number of people earning $0 that would then have jobs earning >$0. Plus you will also have the added benefit of people earning money and paying income AND sales taxes.
Alternatively we could always suffer an economic collapse and cause the dollar to collapse - and that, sir, is a certainty if we continue to simply stay the course. If the dollar collapses then India and China are done for; offshoring will be a thing of the past, right along with their economy.
You do realize that this has little or nothing to do with what I was saying there, right? Or…well, maybe you don’t. So, let me spell it out. My post had nothing to do with whether or not Germany lead or didn’t lead the world in exports. Nor did my point touch on whether or not China did so…nor anything to do with any relation between the two countries about their exports and possible number one status.
Here, let’s see what I wrote and I’ll try and translate it into English:
You see, I’m not talking about, well, any of the stuff you mentioned after quoting me. I’m saying that the Germans are able to charge more for many of their goods and services because there is a perception (which I acknowledged is viable) that German’s make better stuff that’s higher in quality. No where did I mention that Germany was or wasn’t a top exporter, or how this relates to China. My real point here is that protectionist tariffs have little or nothing to do with Germany’s export success. If you would like to address THAT then I’d be happy to discuss it with you.
well if a country of 80million can lead the world in exports 8 years in a row they must really be duping the entire world in a very creative way. Don’tcha think that after awhile 5 billion people would catch on? If they really didn’t make good stuff after a while word would get out.
Duped? Catch on? You still don’t seem to be following me, sadly. Let’s make it easy…take out ‘perception’ since you seem to be hung up on it and just say that Germans make higher quality goods, full stop. See if that makes it easier.
But they DO make goods and services that are geared to a higher end market. Like I said, take ‘perception’ out of the mix since you don’t seem to understand that perception can become reality when it comes to how people view things like quality (and in any case, I DO think that many German goods and services are of higher quality).
The key point still seems to be eluding you however. I’m talking about tariffs there.
Okay, hold my hand, I’m going to walk you through the concept of a tariff. If you have your macro-economics text book, now would be a good time to take off the plastic and open it up to the chapter titled “tariffs.”
Your proposal to save US jobs is to put tariffs on imported items like iPods. To work, that would mean setting the cost of an ipod high enough that consumers won’t want to buy the imported product. This is an important point, I hope you didn’t skip over it. So let’s say an ipod made in China retails at $300, and costs $100. You set the cost at $600 and sales stop. The number isn’t actually relevant, but remember that by definition is had to be high enough to alter consumer behavior, in this case high enough to stop importing.
Your belief is that Apple will decide to open a factory in the US, employ Americans, and continue to sell ipods. You’re wrong.
We already know that it costs more than $100 to produce an ipod in the US, otherwise there wouldn’t be a need to produce it in China. And let’s pretend in this mythical future we keep all our current laws regarding employment, etc.
Here is what happens:
The cost of an ipod in the US is going to increase, well above the current $300. If it ends up costing more than $600 your tariff will have failed, because consumption will stop.
If the cost is lower than the tariff sales will fall. Apple is able to sell the ipod at $300, and not at $600 (as per the definition of the tariff). Even though you’ve created jobs, you’ve also caused inflation (check the glossary if you are unfamiliar with this word). Fewer people are able to afford (want) the new price, and so the US stops being a viable market for ipods.
Apple will stop producing ipods for sale in the US. The factories will close. Jobs will be lost. And with it, the entire ipod related industry. Best Buy et al made a lot of money selling ipods and related devices, they’ll close down, more jobs lost. You kill everything related to the products you put tariffs on. Just like all the countries with retarded tariff policies in place, they find that products don’t get made domestically, they just stop.
You’ve actively made things worse. I find it amazing that it’s almost 2011 and someone still thinks to suggest tariffs as a viable economic policy. But hopefully you’ve finished reading the chapter and you’ve changed your mind. If not we can talk about the secondary problem of smuggling and counterfeiting.
NAFTA is the opposite of a tariff. So sure, thank the lack of tariffs.
NAFTA also made it easier/cheaper for {skilled} Americans to get work in Canada.
Not true. Never has been true. Wasn’t true when consumer goods did cost more than they do now.
That’s one major error in history on your part.
You didn’t understand what $2980 vs $1500 and $300 vs $0 meant, did you? That was directly accounting for the inflation factor.
Also, right now we’re in the middle of a deflationary period and people are doing very very badly as a result. Few people are able to afford the low prices now.
That’s two more big, monstrous errors on your part that you keep making, over and over again.
You keep facing this opposition because we the people know that a $300 iPod is useless when you earn $0. You keep dodging the issue of Americans who earn $0 when they’re put out of work by offshoring. And you also ignore the historical fact that people HAD plenty of manufacturing jobs when prices were higher.
Which is why I have no desire to stoop low enough to hold your hand about this.
But like I said, get used to the opposition getting stronger. And more strident. And eventually getting its way. Either American workers will vote in tariffs or the dollar will collapse and imports will become impossibly expensive anyway. Take your pick - either way, your inability to address these two threats are more reasons why you’re going to continue to be up to your ears in opposition to offshoring.
Which is why Canadians are getting our jobs.
If, of course, they can prove they have $11,000+ in funds.
So we impose a lot of tariffs, and thus raise the price of imported oil. This you believe will be good for the manufacturing sector, like the auto industry?