Skip to comments.Backdrop Hides `Made in China' Labels
Posted on 01/22/2003 4:26:40 PM PST by Karsus
ST. LOUIS Jan. 22
Someone went to great lengths to ensure the backdrop for President Bush's sales pitch Wednesday on his economic stimulus plan sent all the right messages and none of the wrong.
Bush delivered his remarks from a warehouse floor at JS Logistics, a trucking, courier and warehouse business that provided a visual image for his argument that his proposal carries economy-boosting benefits for small businesses. The audience was flanked on all sides by piles of cardboard boxes with additional piles in front of and behind his podium.
Each one of the hundreds of boxes had a piece of paper obscuring its "Made in China" label.
White House spokeswoman Claire Buchan laughingly attributed the clearly gargantuan paper-affixing effort to an "overzealous volunteer" on the president's advance team.
A backdrop made-to-order for the White House filled the space directly behind Bush, which is most likely to show up on TV news clips of the event. Blaring a logo of "Strengthening America's Economy," it exactly mimicked the real-life box piles, down to perfectly aligned shelves.
Except the boxes on the backdrop were labeled, "Made in the USA."
It's not "compliant US companies" that are the problem. It's a US Goverment trade policy that has given foreign governments and companies free reign in the US market to do anything they want. The US govenment has sold out US business and the American worker in its almost religious devotion to "free trade." Whose job or business will be next? Maybe yours? And yes, I agree that disloyal American companies also share much of the blame too.
Even if it does grow in the general sense of the word, if the pie grows at 5% but the number of entrants grows at 10%, the pie is smaller per entrant.
This creates inventories, leading to cyclical reduction in production and discounts on current stock.
And thus it is an inefficient model.
Secondly deeper discounting is only a short term surface fix. Also, the deeper the discount the smaller the profit.
Don't bother me until you read the link I posted in post #19
We need to be a nation of inventors, businessmen and engineers... We do not need textile workers
Hah. What a joke. Your brain I guess doesn't need your hands.
You lack ideas. Just all rhetoric. Get to reality.
I am somewhat with you, but I think it is not free trade that has done anything. Free trade is good. Imbalanced crap, referred to as "trade" is what screws us.
Free trade is a step up.
We need fair and free trade.
With China we have a glamourized purchasing agreement. We don't have "trade" because they don't buy jack.
A correction in production, or supply stocks is exactly what I refer to. Supply and demand are not connected when that happens.
Henry Ford was an innovator, which allowed him to create a new market and new jobs, and his innovation allowed him to pay his workers well.
Now listen to president Bush's economic speeches. He never mentions innovation or creating new markets. Its always about farming, factories, or warehouses. Its about stimulating demand, so that already existing businesses will expand, but never about creating new up and comers that will challenge existing companies to expand or innovate to avoid getting replaced by the new guy.
The Mexican campesinos keep shutting down the bridges with their NAFTA protests. Hopefully they'll get the piece of crap renegociated soon.
Necessity is the mother of invention though.
In a market where there is growth, there is opportunity.
Where there is growth, there is opportunity for the new guy to take that growth away from the other guy. In a down market though, its like trying to pry someone out of a foxhole.
Start-ups rarely win in a down economy. When you are sowing seeds, especially when they are young, you have to have the right conditions or they are easy to die.
As far as creating new markets, the FTAs IMO are just that. Giving us access to new markets. That is what I complain about so much. We give some jackass all the access in the world to our market, but we don't get anything from their market. And when we do negotiate access to their markets, someone comes in and undercuts our investment, thus stifling the real potential we could have reaped.
It's too bad that only a volunteer understands the importance of Americans having jobs and that jobs aren't from the government subsidizes but from things being made in the USA.
The only other choice was a Walmart or Family Dollar. There's not many factories left for him to go to for pictures.
except young growth companies won't be able to compete on that playng field,
What makes you think they won't be able to compete?
Seriously, what is your reasoning? Is it that they won't be able to pay enough dividends, or that they won't win enough market share against big companies? That they won't attract investors?
Here is a question (assuming that smaller companies are less profitable than big ones): if you bought a small to medium cap company share @ $10. The market cap for the whole company was say $100 million but the company has been around for 30 years and they post slow growth. Annually though they pay a dividend of $1.25 per share.
Then there is big multinational XYZ... you buy theirs @$50 per share... and they pay on average $5 per share...which one is a better return for you, the small investor? ------
The Bush plan for tax free dividends will favor the small, and smaller guy.
The problem is that it isn't corporate AMERICA anymore and more FTAs will only increase the rate at which corporations expatriate.
Or he could have visited a successful company like Dell in his old hometown. Instead, he's visiting all the companies Karl Marx would have visited if he'd done a tour touting his economic plan.
Yup, been here a while, and never heard that rule.
That is one of the good things about FR... to be able to cross reference. FR is for ideas and discussion. Ideas can be promoted or discredited through honest discussion.
Its not a bash (per say in this instance, so no need to be offended) against the Freeper, but why hash through all the same stuff we went through last week on another thread? Its going there in the exact same direction anyway. Why not just direct you there to the original thread if that is what you want to do?
I am an open minded guy, but there is no point trying to prove the same point to the same person 50 times, then next week have some "rule" stipulating that I can't refer to the original argument, refutation, or enlightenment that I might have had.
You wiped the floor??? I don't remember that... maybe I wasn't paying too much attention (I get a few bumps here and there so maybe I missed it). Was it when you said Alan Greenspan referred ONLY to large caps like IBM in his 'irrational exhuberance' statement?
How do you know that? Back it up. I am an open minded guy. Changed my mind a few times here on FR. I am not too prideful to do that. For some reason you are just sooo sure that Bush's plan won't benefit the small guy. Sounds like your position is written in stone, and no one can change it.
If you want to finish the job, go ahead. Just try to stay away from the outbursts. Anger is no argument.
Good night to you too.
Bingo. I have no idea how free trade got corrupted into accessing massive pools of Third World slave labor.
Do these "free traders" think they're kidding anyone when they sign trade agreements with the poverty-stricken dregs of the global community, then turn around and claim they represent massive new markets for American high tech goods?
LOL, maybe some day, but it'll take years or decades and during that time the price we'll pay is lost American jobs.
So the good news is eventually we'll bring the whole world up to the US standard of living. The bad news is it'll take decades, and until it happens Americans will have to get used to not having jobs.
Hmmm, I wonder if Congress will support extending unemployment benefits for another 50 years?
Free Trade means the equal treatment of both parties. It means two way trade.
Trade relations on the other hand are often unfair and imbalanced. We give China a 5% tariff rate and they give us a 40% tarriff...
China trade is a classic example of a one way street.
Have you seen the latest issue of Forbes magazine? Go check out the article about labor in Asia.
How do sweat shops contribute to the economy?
Under that arrangement we are free to compete head on, without crutches or barriers.
Thanks. I will.
Bob Zoellick had a lengthy piece in the Dec 7th Economist preaching the usual free trade gospel. Not surprisingly, there was nothing substantial addressing the effects of the Uruguay round on US jobs, let alone the in-progress DDA (Doha Development Agenda).
It seems clearer every day that -- in almost every conceivable way -- there is a widening chasm between America's political elites and her average citizens.
Labor though to some IS nothing more than a commodity. That though is an absolute FOOLISH way to look at it. I seriously cannot stand arrogant assholes who think like that. They deserve to perish in ruin for an attitude like that. I cannot describe how I hate people like that.
Labor is our market. That is the key! Its not where we get labor, its where we sell! We sell and make money when people do well. That is what we want is for people to do well. Doing well, in whatever station in life you are, whether its finance director, or maid, makes for a consumer.
Out of work people don't buy houses or cars. They don't get and repay loans.
We want success. Racing to the bottom of the pay chart is not the best option for us. Cheap labor equals cheap consumers, particularly referring to market development.
The asshole attitude that DAnconia55 used when he said We need to be a nation of inventors, businessmen and engineers... We do not need textile workers is absolute ignorance. It needs to be rooted from the republican mindset. It is nothing more than hateful propaganda of no use.
I think its great.
To think everyone in the nation will achieve that is not realistic. In order to have a healthy economy we should have a range of things in it. Not just one thing. There should be a progressive ladder which people can progress up. Specifically textiles is not the issue.
Are you familiar with the Bible? There is a part where the writer says, "the eye doesn't say to the hand, I have no need of thee..."
The problem with these guys is they want everything from America, but they don't want to give anything to America.
Like I said before, the right way is like ranching. You have to fatten the herd, and constantly nurture before you can eventually reap what you want from them.
When its time to butcher the animal, you don't kill the whole herd. You take the one that is ready to be taken. That way, tommorrow you still have a herd.
And they still are...
Right... Let's just crawl to China for our Soldier's uniforms.
We are doomed, we are doomed.
But this particular outsourcing won't stop there. Soon, with the collapse of the American textile industry, the whole uniform, and all their boots, will be made there.
We already outsource 50% of our military hardware, and the Administration won't defend the old Reagan-Standard of at least 65% U.S. content. Next we'll be 'outsourcing' our armed forces so that we can hire a million Indians and Mexicans to fight for us at 10% of what we pay our troops.
And that is the way Rome went down the toilet. Rome outsourced all its military know-how and jobs to foreign tribes, and its citizens preoccupied themselves with debauchery, corruption, bread and circuses. Patriotic sentiment died.
Next thing they knew the barbarians they had armed, and trained in their methods were at the gates. Rome was conquered.
"Its not trade. Its purchasing."