It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
And you think Americans want to stand there, with a name badge selling the stuff???
They are struggling since the introduction of this model, which is based upon the very toothbrushes, socks, shoes and many other things
Originally posted by Rockdisjoint
Not a trade war, fair policy.
Europe didn't do that, probably because America helped liberate Europe.
In a way an economy is always a service economy. Servicing and manufacturing are both processes of production and the utility of the goods being produced always comes from the value of the service it contributes to satisfy others.
No, I live in the U.S but I like Asian products. If I want to go to the store and buy Japanese manga, I should be able to do that without paying artificially high prices meant to force me to buy U.S made comics.
You said they would instate a 3rd world economy and 3rd world economies are normally socialist
You might not want to, but some people probably do and they should have the option to do that rather than sitting around and begging corporations to come back and give them a job... the U.S use to be full of entrepreneurs.
I like the U.S and I care for the U.S I just don't think cutting off trade with China would help the U.S. In fact I think it will greatly impoverish the rest of the U.S. The same way the smoot–hawley tariff act intend to increase U.S jobs during the great depression did nothing but increase unemployment and poverty.
Dude protectionism IS republicanism, free trade is a liberal idea and even FDR ran on free trade..... Free trade was working just fine until Reagan came along... and began to regulate it.
Originally posted by Rockdisjoint
reply to post by Janky Red
Well, 60% of the jobs lost during this recession where within the small business sector so, I'd say yeah some people like working for themselves.
Did you forget what I was responding to???
So we would all be richer if we just had to pay more for everything?
Are we gonna be richer if we have start paying wages comparable to Chinese wages, just to stay afloat?
They have taken the economy global...of which America has NO chance of competing in our accustomed lifestyle.
Why not, when you don't have to provide healthcare and you pay workers $1 per day.
The very thing that had us living middle class (factories) have been taken away in the name of capitalism, and placed in China, Mexico, etc.
On the contrary, the countries our factories have relocated too, are beginning to form a middle class! Reason being....they have the components that CREATE a middle class.
They come in here and other boards FIGHTING for capitalism when capitalism has royally BENT THEM OVER!
They don't realize that America has LOST in the game of CAPITALISM! It's capitalism that has them losing their homes and possessions. Yet they misdirect their attention toward Obama and government.
ORPORATIONS HAVE A RIGHT to move their factories to China! We will fight so that in the name of capitalism, Mr. CEO can move his company to India and pay them $1 per day....it's his Right!
Then they look round and wonder why their job which was previously paying the mortgage and sending the kids to college is gone. DUMB AZZ...you sent it away!
Why are you equating similar volume of trade with war??? I think you are being unreasonable.
What you do not seem to recognize is this transformation has paced Americas decline, along with Reagan policies...
Is Japan, China???
I am suggesting that the ratio of imports and exports to any US trade partner should be balanced. Any Chinese doctor can tell you that the fundamental cause of illness is a lack of balance, I think that can apply equally to an economy.
Germany, Norway, Sweden, Finland, Denmark and the UK have much more socialistic governments, and all of them have higher wages, better healthcare, more vacation time and stronger base currencies, AND TRADE POLICIES.
I was challenged the other day to name a stronger economy that is NOT socialist.
Can you help me?
I think the political paradigm has changed much more than you care to realize,
Are we gonna be richer if we have start paying wages comparable to Chinese wages, just to stay afloat?
Originally posted by Rockdisjoint
reply to post by Janky Red
[
Because when goods can no longer pass borders soldiers will, just look at the middle east. Wouldn't you have preferred it if we traded with them peacefully rather than going to war and stealing their oil and other natural resources?
The U.S has been declining ever since 1971, trying to bring up the Reagan bogeyman is just being intellectually dishonest.
Americas debt model started with Reagan, Reagan effectively indebted America, in actually terms, more than
ALL the presidents combined by the end of his presidency. Infact 8 Trillion of our current debt is principle and
interest on his initial debt.
That's my point trade would be balanced if it wasn't for govt intervention within our monetary system.
A point that I am supposed to accept 'cause you wrote it???
I'm not sure how you could consider those countries socialist though....... Socialism means public ownership of the means of production, i.e. the state, those countries still have private ownership.
Germany, Norway, Sweden, Finland, Denmark and the UK - ALL of these countries are far more socialist than America, higher taxes and regulation, are you kidding?
None of those countries you listed are socialist, interventionism and welfarism aren't socialism
All those countries have far more government intrusion into the market place, SOCIALIZED MEDICINE
and viable socialist parties.
Mhm, maybe New Zealand, Switzerland, Ireland, Hong Kong, even Canada. They all have higher levels of economic freedom, EU members even have more trade freedom than the U.S.
New Zealand, Switzerland, Ireland, even Canada - All have more socialist policies and Socialized medicine
and protectionist policies in place.
Bush was in office just a few years ago, protectionism or economic nationalism has always been a republican thing....
Well I am against corporatism and I am protectionist, What am I???
Why would U.S workers have to compete with Chinese wages? U.S manufacturing workers have higher wages than Chinese manufacturing workers now, I don't see why that would change. Low skilled Chinese workers cost less, but they will also produce less. What matters to the employer is labor cost per unit produced. Workers receive higher wages because their productivity is such that they are worth more.
Because corporations would like to eliminate wage entry, pay people $9 a day so Executives can earn the difference. GOP would like to help that too, as long as there are "jobs", failing to mention that this proposal will
create servitude
Americas debt model started with Reagan, Reagan effectively indebted America, in actually terms, more than ALL the presidents combined by the end of his presidency. Infact 8 Trillion of our current debt is principle and interest on his initial debt.
A point that I am supposed to accept 'cause you wrote it???
Germany, Norway, Sweden, Finland, Denmark and the UK - ALL of these countries are far more socialist than America, higher taxes and regulation, are you kidding?
All those countries have far more government intrusion into the market place, SOCIALIZED MEDICINE and viable socialist parties.
New Zealand, Switzerland, Ireland, even Canada - All have more socialist policies and Socialized medicine and protectionist policies in place.
Well I am against corporatism and I am protectionist, What am I???
Because corporations would like to eliminate wage entry, pay people $9 a day so Executives can earn the difference. GOP would like to help that too, as long as there are "jobs", failing to mention that this proposal will create servitude
Originally posted by Rockdisjoint
reply to post by Janky Red
A point that I am supposed to accept 'cause you wrote it???
No, because it's self evident -- if Chinese citizens could afford to buy more of our goods they would buy more.
You are completely changing the basis of what I was responding to aren't you.
You arrested that government that... "That's my point trade would be balanced if it wasn't for govt intervention within our monetary system."
You are all over the place, it sounds like you are just regurgitating popular rhetoric just for arguments sake.
if Chinese citizens could afford to buy more of our goods they would buy more.
AND
trade would be balanced if it wasn't for govt intervention within our monetary system
Are two completely separate considerations.
The second one sounds like magical conjure of some sort
IT is like saying; "I can go to space, if the oceans would stop producing waves"
Make your point and stick to it, then I can respond
. I really don't see how their govts are any different than ours, the U.S gives away hand outs and regulates a lot too and yes they have socialized health care, but the U.S health care system isn't market health care.... and I'm still not seeing what free health care has to do with socialism
You don't see what free health care has to do with socialism?
Did you come here to discuss or play patty cake?
Yes, they still have some intervention and welfare, but their economies are still market economies, less interventionist and freer than ours. Do you have any proof when you say they are protectionist?
Canada charges a 15% tariff on import cars...
U.S it is 2.5%
New Zealand does not want Canada joining negotiations for the Trans Pacific Partnership agreement because Canada wants dairy products exempted from any deal, Prime Minister John Key said in Ottawa last night.
"The sticking point is Canada wants to exclude dairy, and that would be unacceptable to us," Mr Key told the Herald.
"Our focus is on getting an agreement that is comprehensive and flexible.
"We certainly would be resistant to anything that halted the process up."
The TPP issue was discussed at talks yesterday between Mr Key and Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper, but Mr Harper gave nothing away in his comments at a press conference.
You're still a corporatist, since you want to shield American corporations from foreign competition.
That's rich, a corporatist is someone who advances the agenda of business, before the well being of
the American citizen.
If people think the wages are too low then they won't take them
You are unreasonable and not very logical, I know it has to do with your ideological outlook... but dumbing yourself down, to protect a notion is treasonous to your own being and mind. I assume, due to the lack of cohesion or insight that his whole debate with you has just be superficial sport on your behalf, a chance to jettison out some pre canned political chum maybe?
People all around the world work for wages that are sub human. It is called hunger, the motivation is
force of hunger
Mexican Minimum wage is $4.70 a day
You can buy a chicken and a liter of milk, for one days worth of work.
I don't think you really care to understand the implications of what you and other globalist corporatists
are inviting here. Your argument and understanding seems to reflect that, it is like advocating for
AIDS as a weight loss program. It is fine to be tough and square, but not when it makes you blind and
ignorant.edit on 8-9-2011 by Janky Red because: (no reason given)
Make your point and stick to it, then I can respond
You don't see what free health care has to do with socialism? Did you come here to discuss or play patty cake?
Canada charges a 15% tariff on import cars...
That's rich, a corporatist is someone who advances the agenda of business, before the well being of the American citizen.
You are unreasonable and not very logical, I know it has to do with your ideological outlook... but dumbing yourself down, to protect a notion is treasonous to your own being and mind.
assume, due to the lack of cohesion or insight that his whole debate with you has just be superficial sport on your behalf, a chance to jettison out some pre canned political chum maybe?
People all around the world work for wages that are sub human. It is called hunger, the motivation is force of hunger
I don't think you really care to understand the implications of what you and other globalist corporatists are inviting here.
your argument and understanding seems to reflect that, it is like advocating for AIDS as a weight loss program. It is fine to be tough and square, but not when it makes you blind and ignorant.
Originally posted by Rockdisjoint
I don' t think we are getting anywhere, I am sorry I have been insulting to you.
I am not going to discuss this anymore with you, there is not much point to it.
Take Care
In 1970 US residents spent 46 percent of their outlays on goods (manufacturing, grown or mined) and 54 percent on services and construction. By 1991, the shares were 40.7 and 59.3 percent, respectively, as people began buying comparatively more health care, travel, entertainment, legal services, fast food and so on. It is hardly surprising, given this shift, that manufacturing has become a less important part of the economy.
Originally posted by Fury1984
A gallon of gas for a silver dime!!