Itr’s not a “skewed perspective”. It is that he is totally ignorant of how the economy works and he ignores and refuses to address the objections addressed to him.
Look, America cannot subsidize its industries because other countries would not stand for it and GATT would slap a ton of penalties on American products and it would mean fewer exports. What part of that don’t you understand?
And that is just one reason. there are a hundred others. Sheesh.
D_Odds, lol…sorry. 
We seem to be trying to make the same points. I think its hopeless, to be honest, but if Cecil can try I suppose we can too…
Reguards,
XT
You really don’t have a clue do you? The reason foreign firms have set up plants in America has little, if anything, to do with tariffs and everything to do winth market forces. It has to do with lower transportation costs and with lower labor costs. You see, Mercedes set up an American plant because labor was cheaper than in Germany and if it kept making cars in Germany it could not compete in America given the higher cost of labor and the cost of transportation. You see, it works both ways. When American labor is competitive, factories settle in America. Mercedes could build an American plant because it found qualified labor it could use cheaper than in Germany. It could also find cheaper labor in Mexico but not as qualified and it would also raise shipping costs. So the best deal all around was to make a plant in America. The same market forces which take some jobs away bring other jobs. But, obviously, you just don’t get it.
D_Odds: Thanks. And just so you don’t think I’m a total slouch, I did do some googling, but couldn’t find the info you did.
I’m guessing that Sussanann et all would blame the recent stock market decline on all those NAFTA enhanced Mexican dot-coms that went bust and dragged the US economy down with them.
I guess not, from your perspective, but your acting like an ass doesn’t help me see things your way any better.
I’m not the only person in the world that sees this new business trend as a problem and there will be long term negative repercussions in our economy because of it.
While the statement may be true that is not the way we address each other here in GD.
You are correct once again. There are many ignorant people who believe complex problems have simple solutions.
You have refused to address what many of us are saying. No arguments, just simplistic statements.
GATT has recently authorised the EU the highest award ever ($4 billion IIRC) against the USA for illegal subsidies to exports. Can you give us your opinion on how to deal with this specific problem? What would you do?
Will you address the other points I and other have raised as objections?
i will point further that any help to corportaions would be demonized as “corporate welfare” and such. You can’t win. Protect American corporations and it’s corporate welfare. Don’t protect them and it’s not caring about lost jobs.
You have expressed many simplistic concerns. Can you tell us wht you would propose? Give us your economic program so we can better analyze it.
Mace and sailor and the rest seem to think any amount of suffering by the unemployed is fine so long as their economic theories remain undisturbed. From this I deduce that they are not liberals, and that they are not unemployed.
They seem to think the onus is on others to find workable solutios to the Bushinomic malaise that grips our country. They’re wrong. Telling people who are in economic duress to “just suffer and die” for the good of laissez faire economics doesn’t do any good. They already are suffering and dying, they’re looking for a better deal.
My own feeling is that we need to create a new job corps, a sort of WCC for the 2000s which would build new infrastructure in the U.S. and also work to solve difficult social problems such as homelessness. It would cost, but so the hell what? War costs, we still do it, let’s put our money into something productive for a change.
I also think the penalties for corporate malfeasance are FAR too lenient considering the rewards involved. Putting corporate officers who do this in maximum security prisons for decades and beggaring their families would probably give other corporate thieves more pause for thought.
Grim, I’ll try to stay away from inflamatory language, but the problem is that alternatives suggested thus far are more harmful than helpful. Whether we like it or not, the US economy is far more dependent on global markets than it was half a century ago. We cannot openly atagonize (well, any more than we already do) our global partners and expect to be able to continue to grow our economy steadily. Overall US economic growth is tied to foreign demand. In a world where the US is continually lambasted for its bumbling foreign policy, our best export is jobs. If you really want to address long-term issues, a working middle-class in the third world, where countries will never have the means to produce all the middle class can consume, is far better than protecting and propping up industries domestically. Given the availability of quality schooling domestically, we are better off identifying where our workers have a competitive advantage and channeling resources in that direction. Done properly, the negative effects on the economy are short-term.
Of course, ask two economists (which I am not, btw) a question and you’ll three answers. There will be economists who disagree. However, I do financial analysis and I do read many economic outlooks and, by far, the majority don’t see foreign outsourcing as the devil that you and others are making it to be. Papers and politicians though, earn points/votes through scare tactics. When it is your town that has lost a major employer, blaming outsourcing is an easy sell.
Wrong question. Nike is able to charge a premium because it competes well on the quality factor (or branding, actually, a closely related but slightly different factor).
The real question is, “how much would Nike shoes cost if they weren’t produced overseas?” And that answer is “more than they do now.”
Sua
I am neither liberal nor conservative. My periods of unemployment have been few and relatively brief.
Fuzzy memory here, but I believe that public works live the TVA were technically illegal. Having said that, I agree that finding able bodied workers jobs is the best solution, provided that their work product produces more revenue (social included) than it costs.
I’ll agree wholeheartedly here. But I’ll caveat that corporate heads far more often legally benefit financially far in excess of what they produce.
No the point is that you have not offered any solution that is better than what we have. “Bleeding hearts” and “caring” are not solutions. My solution is bad? Ok let’s hear yours. Just saying you care means nothing. You have not presented a better solution. Proving mine is bad serves for nothing unless you present a better one. And you don’t have it.
Totally irrelevant. Please address my arguments.
sailor,
I guess I can’t call you on your behavior and yet you can sprinkle your posts with simplistic and ignorant and clueless? What a world!
There is no need for complication in understanding my concern. People have to work in order for the economy to grow. American businesses are apparently offshoring labor in search of ever increasing profits and not really out of necessity.
A quick Google of “Dell earnings” shows only rather spectacular reports. It doesn’t look to me like Dell was anywhere near having financial difficulties that would require major labor cutbacks and yet they happened. Turn around and they have an even larger workforce in a foreign country. Wow!
What other points have I skipped? That the money will eventually come back because they’ll eat at McDonalds? I doubt that’ll happen in India. How long is that going to take? There are billions of people that live in countries that have lower standards of living and can undercut American wages easily. This isn’t going to be a short term problem.
As to your repetition of subsidies – I fail to see how the WTO could penalize American businesses for NOT hiring workers in foreign countries.
Just to let you know, I’d have no problem with this if I believed it was necessary. At this point, shifting jobs overseas, at the expense of my fellow citizens, so some CEO can buy a third house and a VP can buy a bigger boat doesn’t cut it. I’ll not support any company that goes in this direction.
Dude, I’m NOT getting a Dell!
D_Odds,
You are correct. Nobody knows how this will play out. I just don’t like the looks of the way things are going.
Evil Captor,
I hear ya!
I love all the Bush aphorisms. “Bushinomic malaise”. Gods. I guess in your mind, Evil Captor, if you aren’t liberal you MUST be wrong. I didn’t think that we were addressing, specifically, Bush’s policies towards business (such as they are). What we’ve been discussing is Americas general stance, reguardless of administration, towards business. How was our foreign posture (RE: American companies using/not using foreign workers) any different under Bumbling Bill? The only difference I can see is we had a (false) boom economy, which everyone with a clue KNEW had to be adjusted at some point. That point came while ole Billy boy was still in office, I hate to tell you. And now we are living the down side. The economy is like a giant pendulum my boy…it swings up, it swings back. You are living in a fantasy world if you think that the President (ANY President) has any real control, or even any understanding, of that. Bumbling Bill got credit for a boom economy which he didn’t deserve, and good ole boy Dubya is gona get hammered because he has a bust economy. Its gona spell his doom politically, which isn’t a bad thing…its just for all the wrong reasons. There are REAL reasons to boot his ass, this just isn’t one of them IMO.
I’m not a liberal, Evil. I’m not a conservative either. I’m a moderate independant for what its worth. I’m also not a fan of ole Dubya and his merry band, for all kinds of reasons (I didn’t like Bumbling Bill either, as you can prolly tell). I neither voted for him (Dubya), nor will vote for him come next election. I think his economic policies are simplistic and short sighted. But we aren’t TALKING about HIS policies here, bro. The current posture of US business is relatively unchanged, except they’ve gotten a bit smarter since the 70’s. Sailor, D_Odds and John Mace are saying this better than I, but they are talking about FACTS, not fantasy. Its all well and good to bleed for the people out of work. As it turns out, I HAVE been unemployed before, but like D_Odds was always able to retrain myself to find work again. How about listing a viable alternative to whats been discussed, though. I honestly can’t think of one that would work in the REAL world, as opposed to the happy liberal fantasy you’ve apperently constructed.
It goes to show that, while conservatives are nuts, liberals are out of touch (I know this is a sweeping statement, but couldn’t help paraphrasing The Master…its one of my favorite quotes by ole Cecil).
-XT
From Grim714
“Just to let you know, I’d have no problem with this if I believed it was necessary. At this point, shifting jobs overseas, at the expense of my fellow citizens, so some CEO can buy a third house and a VP can buy a bigger boat doesn’t cut it. I’ll not support any company that goes in this direction.”
I’m sorry Grim…you just don’t get it. THe fact that you can buy a Dell computer for $600 now (reasonably outfitted too) appearently just doesn’t phase you…for you its all about those evil rich exploiting the masses. At every turn you show that you don’t have a grasp of the essentials here…and I’m sorry for it. Maybe you need to do some more indepth independant research (I would suggest trying for a balanced view too, but thats just me). Its been explained here pretty in depth (though there has been some exasparation towards you not getting it that was probably uncalled for)…but I think its a lots cause. I’m going to retire from the thread at this point unless there is more to the debate part…like a viable alternative we can discuss. My feeling now is, this is like trying to debate with a flat earther about the world being a sphere, or a creationist about the merits of evolution…emotion vs facts.
Reguards,
XT
Flattery will get you nowhere.
XT,
The rich are evil and do exploit the masses. Ten years of corporate culture pounded that lesson into my skull over and over.
“It’s better to be a dog in a peaceful time than be a man in a chaotic period.”
Funny you should mention war. We already have a job corps - the U.S. Armed Forces. Free food, free housing, full health, full dental, money - the whole shabang. Sign up today!
Your cup is already full.
Just a quick comment on this before heading home for the long, working, studying, no-fun weekend. While I won’t hold myself up as an expert, this is my area.
Dell gets graded by its stockholders. The stockholders require consistently rising earnings per share of stock. In order to live up to its commitment to shareholders, Dell has to look to the future. It must be proactive, not reactive (like the auto industry was 30-40 years ago). Dell sees things like slackening demand and greater competition coming from HP/Compaq on the low end and Alienware on the high end, and it manuevers itself to remain competitive tomorrow. Dell cuts better deals with its suppliers. Dell uses generic parts. Dell expands its product line to include PDAs and printers. Dell reduces its labor costs (note that most Dell PCs sold domestically are still built domestically).
Not every strategy will work. If enough Hispanic/Americans complain that they can’t communicate with Indian tech support and Dell loses one of its competitive edges over its rivals, they will have to resource back to the US. Perhaps the PDA/printer business tanks. Or maybe overall demand tanks far more than expected. Dell has diversified its risk, so that one or two events won’t cripple earnings, and reacts to areas where it was wrong.
That’s why Dell will outsource when there aren’t any apparent problems in historical numbers. note: this is an example, and uses hypotheticals
Where exactly is the line that separates the rich from the exploited? I want to know where evilness starts. If a rich man loses some of his money does he become good? Or exploted? Or both?