Posted on 05/30/2012 9:31:18 AM PDT by Reaganite Republican
I bet the union workers are happy!
( I recorded it )
They cannot possibly make money on that
I said it right from the start- Obambi did not need to take over the entire auto industry, only one company- they use the power of the tax dollars to drive the others out of business
who can compete with a $39 a month lease?
My husband and I were just talking last night about the cars that are gone..Pontiac,etc. and why Buick was left unscathed....and here’s your post...there it is... :)
That's far too sensible to ever fly here.
That quote, the unfettered movement of capital, freed from all political, national and religious shackles was used by Marx in an 1852 American newspaper article to describe a political movement in England, the "Manchester School" of economists who stood for freedom of trade and non-interference by the government with private enterprise.
It was written long before Das Kapital and neither the phrase nor the sentiment ever appears in Marx's eventual writings on his new, "economic" philosophy.
The quote is often used wrongly to smear those of us who also believe in the citizens' right to conduct their economic lives without the prior restraint of the government. To claim that Marx endorsed free trade is a serious misunderstanding of history -- or perhaps just an easy and dishonest way to insult that which every freedom-loving American should endorse.
I'm sick of it.
Ah, another citizen of the world heard from. Marx would be so proud of you. So would the global communists in business suits that he inspired.
It was capitalism (private ownership) infused with patriotism, morals, and a work ethic (an honest days work for an honest days pay) that made a large wealthy middle class in the US.
Adam Smith, so liberally quoted by free traders, assumed that individuals would prefer “support of domestic to that of foreign industry” and supported tariffs under certain circumstances. Smith’s world was one of small local businesses and their employees, precisely the people who are being destroyed by ‘free trade’ and globalists in their unending quest for CHEAP LABOR. [These same global corporations have no problem with using onerous regulation to squash competition from small local business.]
David Ricard, another icon of free traders, assumed in his theory of comparative advantage that there was a natural inclination to be patriotic when investing. In fact he admitted that comparative advantage did not exist if capital, labor, and technology freely moved across national boundaries.
A thought: only one hope for Michigan- make it a RIGHT TO WORK state. There is NO other answer but cutting-off the UAW labor-racket mob.
Other than that, forget it
That should apply to IL and other heavily unionized states too!
Ah, so you have completely ignored the content of my post which was that Marx nor the Marxists ever endorsed free trade. How convenient it must be to post something without addressing the issues. It is obviously a belief of yours that free trade is Marxist (or communist,) but you are wrong. If you have some sources to refute that, please pass them along. But make them original sources and not second-hand crap from jingoists.
It was capitalism (private ownership) infused with patriotism, morals, and a work ethic (an honest days work for an honest days pay) that made a large wealthy middle class in the US.
Of course, it was. There is nothing in that statement I could possibly disagree with.
Adam Smith, so liberally quoted by free traders, assumed that individuals would prefer “support of domestic to that of foreign industry” and supported tariffs under certain circumstances.
Smith wrote at a time when an entrepreneur engaged in foreign trade would commit his capital to an endeavor that might take years to complete. Sailing a ship to the Americas, selling its cargo, and awaiting its return was a lengthy process and one, given the lack of communications at the time, meant that a British entrepreneur had no idea what was happening to his investment. It's only natural he would prefer a domestic placement of his funds if one could be found. None of that applies today.
Smith’s world was one of small local businesses and their employees, precisely the people who are being destroyed by ‘free trade’ and globalists in their unending quest for CHEAP LABOR.
You protectionists, or as I prefer to call you, advocates of more government control, always retreat to the "cheap labor" shibboleth. The reason why labor is more expensive, say, in the United States or other industrialized countries, is that other American industries have bid up these labor costs. These industries are therefore more efficient than the industry suffering from competition, and hence the latter should cut back or shut down and allow resources to shift to more efficient and productive fields.
You wish to live in a dream land where America can have its high labor costs, heavy government regulation, fiscal debt, inflationary monetary policy and still, somehow -- inexplicably -- all the jobs.
[These same global corporations have no problem with using onerous regulation to squash competition from small local business.]
You are correct -- it's called crony capitalism and Smith wrote about that, too.
"“People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices.”
David Ricard[o], another icon of free traders, assumed in his theory of comparative advantage that there was a natural inclination to be patriotic when investing. In fact he admitted that comparative advantage did not exist if capital, labor, and technology freely moved across national boundaries.
He was wrong. Germany, Japan, and the United States disprove him. Germany and Japan remain exporting juggernauts and the U.S. still creates 19% of all the wealth created in the world. When I was in second grade (1962,) the U.S. created some 25% of the wealth. Given the explosive growth of Europe; South America; and Asia since then, it's quite remarkable that we still do so well.
That said, we could do better. But limiting Americans' ability to do business with the rest of the world is not the answer. Americans can only prosper if they are left free to conduct their business as they choose. Some will make mistakes, most will not.
In the end, it is you who would limit our opportunities by allowing the government to dictate -- under some half-wit notion of misguided nationalism -- whom we may sell our property to or buy our property from. It's really none of your business unless we're at war. That is the exception Adam Smith spoke of and I agree with him.
I certainly stand corrected on that. His view does not, however, make free trade a Marxist policy. It pre-existed Marx, but he evidently found something [false] to endorse it. Allowing a free citizen of the United States to trade with whomever he wants in another country seems completely uncontroversial to me.
I call the excuse of "high wages" a shibboleth not because our wages aren't higher than, say, China's (they're lower than Germany's, though, for example,) but because labor costs are the largest expense that a company can control. It cannot change the tax laws, the environmental regulations, the safety rules, or unionized labor laws.
Since you claim you are against crony capitalism and government interference, I find it very interesting that your are not ranting on against GATT, NAFTA, CAFTA, the WTO,
I could certainly rant against those because they are anything but "free" trade. They are typical, big-government negotiated trade deals that are anything but free. The politicians refer to them as "free trade" deals, but that's smoke.
Free trade would mean simply that the citizens of any two countries can buy whatever they wish from each other. No negotiations, loopholes, hold-backs, WTO, or International Courts needed.
Our economic problems are not a result of free trade. They come from heavy corporate and capital taxation, massive federal deficit-spending, over-regulation of business, and the Fed's half-century policy of inflation.
Absent those burdens, American business would be competitive.
Hmm ... You dismiss what Smith and Ricardo have written about patriotism, dismiss what Marx has written about free trade, dismiss free trade as currently defined, discussed, and promoted by many politicians, economists, and academics, admit off-shoring is all about CHEAP labor, and promote your version of free trade that does not exist, has never existed, and will never exist as long as there are national boundaries and human nature. It is suspiciously like Marx’s unfettered movement of capital. Chasing after cheap labor will inevitably result in the standard of living being pushed down to the lowest global level.
While our economic problems are partially the result of heavy corporate and capital taxation, massive federal deficit-spending, over-regulation of business, and the Fed’s half-century policy of inflation, they are also the result of free trade as currently described and practiced. Note this includes flooding the country with illegals and guest workers.
Boy was Yuri correct!
I do. I was not born an economic slave to my countrymen.
, dismiss what Marx has written about free trade,
Of course, I do. It's untrue. His prediction didn't happen did it.
dismiss free trade as currently defined, discussed, and promoted by many politicians, economists, and academics,
You're getting ridiculous. Free trade is free trade. It's a simple concept. People can trade with anyone they wish.
Tell me what you would implement in its place. Instead of picking apart my arguments, let me have a go at yours -- if you have any.
Good luck fighting a war with China and Russia when all the U.S. can produce is french fries and sitcoms.
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.