Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

What say ye?

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2 ... s-and-jobs" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Great plan. But he's set himself up for failure---AGAIN. Exports double on average every 11 years...and yet he wants to do it in five.

From what I've read, we are becoming more and more like a third world nation, exporting raw materials and letting someone else make the money and create jobs from manufacturing. Free trade sounds real nice though.

Before the federal income tax, didn't we use to pay for government primarily through tariffs?

AZGrizFan wrote:Great plan. But he's set himself up for failure---AGAIN. Exports double on average every 11 years...and yet he wants to do it in five.

Point taken. But, like the article said:

This doesn't mean that Obama's target is unreachable, however. And efforts to boost exports and achieve a more-balanced global economy could bring benefits even if his goal isn't reached

kalm wrote:From what I've read, we are becoming more and more like a third world nation, exporting raw materials and letting someone else make the money and create jobs from manufacturing. Free trade sounds real nice though.

Before the federal income tax, didn't we use to pay for government primarily through tariffs?

But that was back when only the US and Western Europe were industrialized, no?

All we need is to get some other contries to get into a war that we stay out of. After all, we are the worlds largest arms dealer.

Grizalltheway wrote:

kalm wrote:From what I've read, we are becoming more and more like a third world nation, exporting raw materials and letting someone else make the money and create jobs from manufacturing. Free trade sounds real nice though.

Before the federal income tax, didn't we use to pay for government primarily through tariffs?

But that was back when only the US and Western Europe were industrialized, no?

True, and I guess this is what we get for allowing the rest of the world to industrialize and rely upon us to be the world's policeman.

Does free trade help anyone except multi-national corporations?

kalm wrote:

Grizalltheway wrote:
But that was back when only the US and Western Europe were industrialized, no?

True, and I guess this is what we get for allowing the rest of the world to industrialize and rely upon us to be the world's policeman.

Does free trade help anyone except multi-national corporations?

Not that I can tell.

AZGrizFan wrote:Great plan. But he's set himself up for failure---AGAIN. Exports double on average every 11 years...and yet he wants to do it in five.

He may fail at attaining some arbitrary number... like "doubling exports in 5 years." But, if he increases exports significantly more than they otherwise would have and increases jobs alongside of that... it's a success.

And, I think this is the biggest potential for growth in our economy over the long term. the middle classes in India and China will soon dwarf the rest of the world population and those people will be spending money on Coke, IBM, Microsoft, McDonalds, Kraft, Caterpillar, and other US based global companies.

Which is great for India and China but not so much for us.

kalm wrote:From what I've read, we are becoming more and more like a third world nation, exporting raw materials and letting someone else make the money and create jobs from manufacturing.

It's a totally different situation.

Third world nations were raped and forced out of their raw materials. They had and have no room to negotiate. When countries tried to nationalize their oil, fruit, or other raw material industries... the US and other developed countries had no qualms about installing a new government that would be more open to our dominance of their economy.

Having said that, relying on other countries does present problems... but, "becoming more and more like a third world nation" is ridiculous hyperbole.

ALPHAGRIZ1 wrote:Which is great for India and China but not so much for us.

Is this in response to my post? If so... how is China and India buying, and being dependent on, massive amounts of US goods and services not good for the US economy?

Skjellyfetti wrote:

ALPHAGRIZ1 wrote:Which is great for India and China but not so much for us.

Is this in response to my post? If so... how is China and India buying, and being dependent on, massive amounts of US goods and services not good for the US economy?

They will be buying massive quantities of goods from US companies overseas.

So how exactly is this good for the US?

ALPHAGRIZ1 wrote:They will be buying massive quantities of goods from US companies overseas.

So how exactly is this good for the US?

Because US corporations making massive amounts of money is good for the US economy?

Making massive amounts of money overseas that they dont bring back here or pay taxes on.............thats gotta be great for our middle class.....................................................Dubai etc

Skjellyfetti wrote:

kalm wrote:From what I've read, we are becoming more and more like a third world nation, exporting raw materials and letting someone else make the money and create jobs from manufacturing.

It's a totally different situation.

Third world nations were raped and forced out of their raw materials. They had and have no room to negotiate. When countries tried to nationalize their oil, fruit, or other raw material industries... the US and other developed countries had no qualms about installing a new government that would be more open to our dominance of their economy.

Having said that, relying on other countries does present problems... but, "becoming more and more like a third world nation" is ridiculous hyperbole.

Guilty as charged. But manufacturing is still the key and selling products from US companies that are still produced overseas does not help us out near as much.

Skjellyfetti wrote:

ALPHAGRIZ1 wrote:They will be buying massive quantities of goods from US companies overseas.

So how exactly is this good for the US?

Because US corporations making massive amounts of money is good for the US economy?

If those goods are manufactured here, and provide jobs for Americans, then yes. If we offshore the production to India and China (which we do), then not as much.

Grizalltheway wrote:

Skjellyfetti wrote:
Because US corporations making massive amounts of money is good for the US economy?

If those goods are manufactured here, and provide jobs for Americans, then yes. If we offshore the production to India and China (which we do), then not as much.

I agree. It's bad for the little man. But, it's good for the economy and our country as a whole.

Unskilled workers in this country are going to have a bitch of a time. It's just the way it is... I don't see it changing. 4-5% unemployment isn't going to be the "normal" level again. Skill-less workers are fucked.

Skilled workers in the US are going to be making bank for the next few decades, at least. The average age of doctors, accountants, skilled mechanics, stock brokers, engineers, you-name-it, is over 50. Which means soon there will be a labor shortage in those fields. It will be difficult for companies to find smart, skilled labor.

Skjellyfetti wrote:

Grizalltheway wrote:
If those goods are manufactured here, and provide jobs for Americans, then yes. If we offshore the production to India and China (which we do), then not as much.

I agree. It's bad for the little man. But, it's good for the economy and our country as a whole.

Unskilled workers in this country are going to have a bitch of a time. It's just the way it is... I don't see it changing. 4-5% unemployment isn't going to be the "normal" level again. Skill-less workers are ****.

Skilled workers in the US are going to be making bank for the next few decades, at least. The average age of doctors, accountants, skilled mechanics, stock brokers, engineers, you-name-it, is over 50. Which means soon there will be a labor shortage in those fields. It will be difficult for companies to find smart, skilled labor.

I agree there's a shift and I would add that unskilled workers have been used to a lifestyle above their means in this country. Still, doctors, accountants, skilled mechanics, and stock brokers are service industry. How are they going to be able to make bank if unskilled workers can't afford their services? On a macro scale, manufacturing is what creates wealth. I'll remove your spleen if you mow my lawn is not sustainable.

Well, yeah, unskilled workers won't be able to afford to pay for expensive services. But, I already admitted they are going to be fucked. So, let's forget about them for a bit.

The skilled, high educated folks will do well without them because they can perform their services in this country for middle class and wealthy folks here or abroad. As I already said there is going to be a huge INCREASE in demand for these jobs here and abroad.

But, our schools have to keep our workforce competitive. That's the biggest scare to me. If Americans stop being desired for service industry jobs... then we're all fucked.

Skjellyfetti wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:Great plan. But he's set himself up for failure---AGAIN. Exports double on average every 11 years...and yet he wants to do it in five.

He may fail at attaining some arbitrary number... like "doubling exports in 5 years." But, if he increases exports significantly more than they otherwise would have and increases jobs alongside of that... it's a success....

You mean like "exports created or saved," skelly?

How does he reconcile his wish to increase exports with his support for big labor?

First, he will have to set things up so that US companies that move production offshore are heavily penalized. Some companies will continue to operate at lower revenue levels. However, smaller companies will cease doing business. The profit margin just isn't there.

Increasing exports means increasing domestic production. The problem here is twofold.

First, in order to increase domestic production, Obama is going to have to betray his union handlers. Who knows? Maybe he will. He already threw the fags and the Pinkers under the bus. Then again, they don't control the Democratic purse strings the way Big Labor does.

Second, companies will have to find niche markets for their products that the Chinese haven't already cornered. China has quite a head start on us in the consumer export business. We really haven't done it in a long time. Private enterprise always finds a way to make things like this work, but is there enough capital out there for companies to set up manufacturing in areas they abandoned long ago?

One last thought. Obama mentions enforcing intellectual property rights. This means China. Let me put this in clear, simple terms. This country will NEVER in our lifetimes squeeze China more than they will allow us to. We do not call the shots in this area. China does. They own our debt, and they can destroy us economically overnight, and the damage to their own economy would be recoveable within 5 years. For as country that thinks in terms of decades and centuries, this is a small matter. Any politician that talks tough on China is either ignorant or lying. Period.

I wish Obama luck, though. If he pursues this in a pragmatic sense instead of an ideological one, then he might be able to make a few improvements. Right now his administration is promising the moon, and I think that is a bad political move, unless they already have a "clerical strategy" for showing how they "created jobs."

CID1990 wrote:How does he reconcile his wish to increase exports with his support for big labor?

First, he will have to set things up so that US companies that move production offshore are heavily penalized. Some companies will continue to operate at lower revenue levels. However, smaller companies will cease doing business. The profit margin just isn't there.

Increasing exports means increasing domestic production. The problem here is twofold.

First, in order to increase domestic production, Obama is going to have to betray his union handlers. Who knows? Maybe he will. He already threw the fags and the Pinkers under the bus. Then again, they don't control the Democratic purse strings the way Big Labor does.

Second, companies will have to find niche markets for their products that the Chinese haven't already cornered. China has quite a head start on us in the consumer export business. We really haven't done it in a long time. Private enterprise always finds a way to make things like this work, but is there enough capital out there for companies to set up manufacturing in areas they abandoned long ago?

One last thought. Obama mentions enforcing intellectual property rights. This means China. Let me put this in clear, simple terms. This country will NEVER in our lifetimes squeeze China more than they will allow us to. We do not call the shots in this area. China does. They own our debt, and they can destroy us economically overnight, and the damage to their own economy would be recoveable within 5 years. For as country that thinks in terms of decades and centuries, this is a small matter. Any politician that talks tough on China is either ignorant or lying. Period.

I wish Obama luck, though. If he pursues this in a pragmatic sense instead of an ideological one, then he might be able to make a few improvements. Right now his administration is promising the moon, and I think that is a bad political move, unless they already have a "clerical strategy" for showing how they "created jobs."

Less than 10% of U.S. labor is unionized. Do you really think labor controls him more than big business?

kalm wrote:

CID1990 wrote:How does he reconcile his wish to increase exports with his support for big labor?

First, he will have to set things up so that US companies that move production offshore are heavily penalized. Some companies will continue to operate at lower revenue levels. However, smaller companies will cease doing business. The profit margin just isn't there.

Increasing exports means increasing domestic production. The problem here is twofold.

First, in order to increase domestic production, Obama is going to have to betray his union handlers. Who knows? Maybe he will. He already threw the fags and the Pinkers under the bus. Then again, they don't control the Democratic purse strings the way Big Labor does.

Second, companies will have to find niche markets for their products that the Chinese haven't already cornered. China has quite a head start on us in the consumer export business. We really haven't done it in a long time. Private enterprise always finds a way to make things like this work, but is there enough capital out there for companies to set up manufacturing in areas they abandoned long ago?

One last thought. Obama mentions enforcing intellectual property rights. This means China. Let me put this in clear, simple terms. This country will NEVER in our lifetimes squeeze China more than they will allow us to. We do not call the shots in this area. China does. They own our debt, and they can destroy us economically overnight, and the damage to their own economy would be recoveable within 5 years. For as country that thinks in terms of decades and centuries, this is a small matter. Any politician that talks tough on China is either ignorant or lying. Period.

I wish Obama luck, though. If he pursues this in a pragmatic sense instead of an ideological one, then he might be able to make a few improvements. Right now his administration is promising the moon, and I think that is a bad political move, unless they already have a "clerical strategy" for showing how they "created jobs."

Less than 10% of U.S. labor is unionized. Do you really think labor controls him more than big business?

Organized Labor and Big Business together control Obama at the expense of everyone else, including shareholders, bondholders, and nearly every productive person who makes less than a million dollars per year.

Shareholders have been doing pretty damn well since Obama took office. Up ~60% in the last year.