In other words, Bush policies described.
Posted on 09/13/2003 8:49:28 AM PDT by Willie Green
Sounds like this guy is in the pocket of big labor, which does have blame for their current predicament.
In other words, Bush policies described.
I would rather have a "Busheconomy", than a "DeanGephardtKerryadnauseumeconomy".
Can anybody say tax hikes and more regulations that will send more jobs offshore.
Manufacturing is NOT in a steep decline in the USA. As a percentage of GDP it is just about at its all time high. What is in decline is manufacturing jobs >per dollar of output<. The US is now producing the more manufactured goods as a % of GDP, in nominal dollars, and in inflation-adjusted dollars with fewer people...which is a rather long way of saying that:
*** PRODUCTIVITY IS INCREASING ***
This is a GOOD thing folks. Pretty much all wealth in our economy is created through increased productivity.
Remember that it used to take 90% + of the population working in the agricultural sector just to keep us all alive each year. Now it takes less than 10% of the population to keep us fed (not only fed, but chronically obese for the most part).
Should we lament that all the people who "should be" farmers are unemployed? Or should we rejoice that 80% of the population can now work in other sectors to provide additional output/wealth for the rest of us?
If you are one of the people who is temporarily unemployed from your former manufacturing job, then increasing productivity feels like a bad thing (until you get a new job). But reallocation of resources (people, plant, capital, etc.) to more productive uses is what capitalism is all about.
If you want to subsidize those poor folks who lost their jobs then fine. Throw some cash and training at Johnny Lunchpail to teach him how to program in Java.
But DO NOT erect trade barriers. They serve only to impoverish those they intend to protect through higher prices, reduced employment, reduced productivity, etc.
jas3
But this is precisely the fallacious propaganda that William Hawkins debunks in the article I posted.
IOW, Mr. Hawkins thinks that increasing productivity is evil, thus parroting a major labor union tenet.
Actually, he correctly points out that job losses are not due to increased productivity but to loss of market share within our own domestic economy.
But it's not surprising that you'd distort and misrepresent his position. Afterall, you have little else to offer anyway.
Ok lets get to the meat of his point.
As long as that output can be sold, it makes workers more valuable, not less
Huh? The whole point of productivity is to produce the same or more amount of a product with less resources.
That is what is exactly happeneing in the manufacturing sector.
BTW, Willie do you think increasing productivity is evil, like the unions think?
As an Industrial Engineer, my professional credo is "Work Smarter, Not Harder."
I am a staunch advocate of true productivity improvement through application of labor-saving technology and time-saving methods simplification. Such gains in efficiency benefits all of society, not just the companies that practice such an approach.
I am philosophicly opposed to those who misdefine "productivity improvement" to apply to enslaving employees to work harder and longer hours for less pay and benefits. While that approach may attain short term profits, it is regressive, abusive and detrimental to society in the long run.
That is why I find your position so morally reprehenisble and despicable.
Huh could of fooled me with your calling to use govt. force to manage legitimate private business practices.
The Bush Administration already utilizes the force of the bloated government regulatory bureacracy to oppress our domestic industries. Instead of alleviating our businesses from this burden, he compounds the tyranny by undermining our industries with imported goods that are not subject to the same regulation. He does so for the profitable benefit of an elite minority and to the detriment of our nation as a whole.
Huh???? Bush put in steel tariffs.
JMO, Willie, you are having an exorcist type of moment, your head is spinning out of control.
Dubya's "targetted" steel tariffs are an excellent example of what a hypocritical, micromanaging pander-monkey he actually is. Guided by special interests, those tariffs were excessively high on some items and riddled with hundreds of loopholes and exemptions for others. Such inept polical bungling produced tariffs that are not only ineffective, but were also damaging to domestic industries in many instances.
"Targetted" tariffs specified by the demands of special interests DO NOT WORK.
What our nation desperately needs is a relatively low (10~15%), flat-rate, "revenue tariff" placed on ALL imported goods. As James Madison noted, such a tariff is "consistant with the principles of free trade". And the proceeds could be utilized to further reduce other forms of domestic taxation, thus stimulating our domestic economy WITHOUT bankrupting our Treasury.
Bush refuses to do this. Instead, he continues on a path that buries us in debt while stifling our domestic production efforts.
Huh, I guess Ronald Reagan was just as hypocritical for imposing the same type of tariffs.
Willie not only is your head spinning like the exorcist girl, now you are vomiting pea soup, IMO.
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.