Posted on 12/20/2013 1:00:37 PM PST by MosesKnows
“So I don’t really care if exporters scream.”
Bush put the tariff on steel to get votes in Pennsylvania. Our trading partners targeted industries in other key venues where Bush needed support. Wisconsin cheese, was one I remember. Electronics produces by TI was another. People who know they’re getting laid off because of something the president did will likely vote against him. That is why Bush recanted. It lost him the steel workers votes but it gained him thousands of others. So, it’s not an issue of some greedy, rich exporter. It’s an issue of the greedy, rich exporter’s workers and their votes.
I don’t trust any of the analyses I’ve read about the supposed benefits of international trade because globalists funding might be behind them.
We have alcohol in our gasoline because we lost another trade case. Turns out we were subsidizing our farmers. So, Congress made energy independence and alcohol a defense priority, which was allowed under the GATT. We went back to subsidizing farmers. (True story.)
Congress should make electronics and manufacturing a defense priority.
But really they probably need to renounce Gatt.
Congress should make electronics and manufacturing a defense priority.
But really they probably need to renounce Gatt.
We already have that, it’s called “outsourcing”. If you produce something in the US, or offer a service in the US, that can be done in China, and haven’t moved your operation there yet, you are already behind the curve, and shouldn’t run a business. Your competition bought into the asian slave trade long ago, and will run circles around you. The formerly employed masses of the US are the government’s and taxpayer’s problem now. Now if the one percent crowd could just dispose of all of those useless eaters, we would be all set. Sound good to you?
The moral of this story is you can’t compete against government backed slave labor. Pay people for the value they bring to your business, and if you want to pay nothing, expect nothing in return. And unpaid interns will just wind up being your competition in the long run, because they get to learn from your mistakes, free of charge, at your expense.
Textbook answer: NO.
“Unless you’re giving me what I feel is an equal amount of goodies for what I bring to the table, you don’t deserve me.”
So you think an employer, after risking their own capital and working like a dog to build their business will be content to break even on hiring you? The only reason anyone gets hired in a free market system is because the employer stands to make a profit on that labor.
Ideally the employer will set the business up well enough so that you as an employee are still making significantly more than you could with the same amount of effort working on your own.
Have our government drive companies offshore because of our tax policy and have our government try and force them to stay because of our tax policy. It's the path to prosperity.
I didn’t say break even. I said, give me what I think is an equal amount of goodies for what I bring to the table.
Manufacturing CREATES wealth so anything to incentivize onshoring would be good thing, and a net benefit to the country and reduce welfare and poverty.
So what you are saying is that if you had 10 employees and had to fire one because min wage increased then either less work gets done or the 9 do more work.
You are living in the midst of probably the most anti-business administration in our history, and your solution is to raise taxes. Good luck with that, despite the caterwauling about how important manufacturing is.
I prefer to raise consumption based taxes, you are a progressive and love income taxes. All Free traders do. That is the big difference between you and I.
PS: Big business has gone full fascist and loves O’bastard.
There ya’ go again. Telling me what I believe. What would I do without you?
Having been an unfortunate employee and manager (at different companies) who saw such things take place, I’d have to say many businesses would simply expect everyone to do more. I worked a temp job at a plant for a while where I stated out making three chemical batches a day, which was a full day’s work. After some “reorganizing”, I was suddendly expected to make five. That’s a 66% increase in output. It didn’t end well for them. Last I heard from people who still work there, the company is wisely back to two people preparing those batches.
I've shown how a 10% import tariff could enable a $1500 cut in indivual income taxes per worker in the U.S. And U.S. government revenues would still grow because of the income taxes generated when 23% of our population goes back to work.
But you still are against it because your in bed with the Chinese.
Right. And I remember that your assumptions about how the economy (i.e., consumers) would react were so static that your proposal was meaningless.
Yeah,unfortunately that’s a common management technique by managers who are otherwise incompetent. The whole “process re-engineering” craze was kicked off by people who started out making rational re-engineering cuts and then when they didn’t find enough gains, they just made arbitrary cuts to see what broke.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.