Posted on 07/11/2003 10:13:29 AM PDT by Dave S
Not necessarily. A contrarian would expect it'll be a first half recovery instead, probably 2005..
A Recall AND a Fundraiser? I'm toast. |
---|
Let's get this over with FAST. Please contribute! |
What a surprise. The same ball-less and clueless morons who reward themselves with 8 figure compensation and perks, and then outsource everything under the sun to India and China.
"President Bush better so something to get this economy back on track," said Mary S. A. Dumbass, as she struggled to load a 98-inch screen television in the back of her $45,000 SUV. Ms. Dumbass was particularly irate because the overflowing parking lot at the shopping mall forced her to park three miles away, and she had to settle for the floor model of the television because the electronics store was sold out.
/sarcasm off/
So what is your solution?
Creating an "Island America" is not going to work. How many people do you know that are going to be willing to pay twice as much for a pair of jeans of lesser quality to buy American. The American automobile industry almost died twenty years ago, not because of price but because its quality sucked. Now its doddering along because companies like General Motors are paying two or three thousand dollars per car just to pay the health care costs of its RETIREES.
As for increasing tarriffs across the board and interjecting more protectionism, that was the cause of the great depression in the 30's. Raising tariffs or otherwise putting up barriers today as the Europeans and Japaneese are collapsing under the weight of their safety net would result in trade war and fewer goods being sold throughout the world.
Furthermore, you dont decide to produce products in the US and instantly have the capability to do so. If we decided today, it would likely take three or four years to do so and if you think corporations are hesitant to make investments now, just think how hesitant they would be to move production back to the US where the likelihood of ever showing a profit is likely very small. You really cant expect to sell a product here for $500 that sells throughout the rest of the world for $200 or do you?
2017, with the rise of nanotechnology and breakthroughs in bioengineering and fusion power.
That is, if a recognizable America survives the imminent implosion of the Debt Bubble.
And before anyone points out that Toyota is a Japanese auto manufacturer, realize that many of their cars are built right here in the U.S.
Oh, and they just announced a few months ago that they are building a new $1.8 billion plant in Texas to manufacture light trucks, too.
If you ever need evidence of the strength of the U.S. economy, consider this: over the last few years, BMW, Daimler-Benz, and now Toyota have all been building llight truck plants in the U.S., at the same time most of the countries in the world are moping around with high unemployment rates, driving 600-pound cars made of tin, in a desperate attempt to reach some idiotic Kyoto air quality standards.
Yup.....
Then logic would indicate they're causing the problem, not curing it.
"Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results." -- Albert Einstein
And I may be wrong about this, but I believe the tariff on pickup trucks only applies to heavier models that would compete with the Dodge Ram, Ford F-series trucks, etc.
These companies build their vehicles (including many car models, which aren't subject to any tariff) here for one simple reason -- this is where they sell most of them.
The assertion that the Smoot-Hawley tariff was responsible for the Great Depression is a myth based on ignorance of historical facts. The stock market crashed in October, 1929, but Hoover did not sign the tariff into law until June 17, 1930, and therefore could not have caused it.
Imports formed only 6 percent of the GNP. With average tariffs ranging from 40 to 60 percent, this represents an effective tax of merely 2.4 to 3.6 percent. Yet the Great Depression resulted in a 31 percent drop in GNP and 25 percent unemployment. The idea that such a small tax could cause so much economic devastation is too far-fetched to be believed.
Even an effective tax of 2.4 to 3.6 percent is overstating the effects of the tariff. The tariff rates were already high to begin with. One source reveals that Smoot-Hawley raised rates from 26 to 50 percent; another source from 44 to 60 percent. In that case, we are talking about an effective tax increase of 1.4 percent at most.
Further analysis of the economy during the depression years reveals that nearly two-thirds of the drop in imports between 1929 and 1933 occurred prior to the Smoot-Hawley tariff. What the Smoot-Hawley tariff did do was raise tariffs on particular import sensitive goods, such as Canadian agriculture, that were already on the tariff list and increase the amount of goods to which no tariffs were applied.
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.