Outsourcing/Free Trade

Post Reply New Topic

do their brains. It may be just an english expression. It's when they have a small loss, follow up with a bigger on, lose control, lose the lot of their $, hopefully lend some more and do that do, it's hard on the sanity. And so the expression do your brains.
There is also do your bollox, means about the same.

From what perspective are you arguing exactly? An economic perspective? A moral perspective? A nationalist (American) perspective?



First, I assume you (I guess, since I have difficulty telling since I have AS; sorry ) that referring to "stupid...corporatist CEOs" is intended to be sarcastic. I mean, corporations wouldn't spends huge amounts for people to run their companies thinking on the grounds they would be idiots, right? I mean, for as much complains people had about Jack Welch's bonus' and salaries, he certainly did know how to run his company. Furthermore, is the word "corporatist" suppose to imply "fascist? (since that is what the word is from). That doesn't make any sense. Mussolini despised the free-market system. The only reason capitalism is associated with the free-market is because:

1. Stalin decided to use the word "fascism" generally to use opponent Hitler and the "right-wing" (there was no "real" conservative party, in the traditional or modern sense of the word in Germany before World War II) Nazi party to imply that the Nazis were the natural evolution of a capitalist society. This, despite the fact that Germany, it has essentially been an accepted fact with every major party that at least some sort of welfare state should and will exist. With Stalin's logic Hitler's Nazism, Mussolini's Fascism, and Franco's Falangests should have arisen in the United States or Great Britain, not Western Europe. Indeed, following the logic of Marx, Communism itself should risen their as the workers threw off their chains, but this never occurred.

2. The second reason is simple. The extreme association by far-leftists (and occasionally just leftists) of capitalism with fascism is designed to discredit without providing any evidence. Why? For the simple reason that there is no evidence. Mussolini believed in a centralized economic structure. "Corporatism" is designed to imply corporate management fused with the state, but still under the state. The desire was to take the corporate leaders, and instead of wiping them out like the Bolsheviks, putting them at the disposal of the Fascists state structure. This proved terribly ineffective. The Nazi state, which was somewhat less centralized but still required the corporate structure (much of it's effectiveness desirables in the campaigns against dissidents, Jews, and undesirables) to do the bidding of the state when required.

Oh wait, what was I talking about?



Right. So these CEO's are "trying to fill their fat wallets with even more money." So what? If it contributes to the total effectiveness of the economy who cares what the make. For the record this doesn't mean the corporate community is doing a good job at this. While, I understand why a CEO who makes money for a company that makes money but fires employees makes millions they certainly don't do a good job at communicating why. Hmm...or maybe let's be honest. Perhaps they really can't communicate why in this situation. Perhaps the anger at the "greedy" corporations over the loss of jobs while the "rich" guy gets his "big bucks" won't matter despite the fact that removing those firings and big bucks there would be no company and be no jobs. Still, the corporations (strangely, like congressional Republicans and President Bush) are absolutely inept at communications.

Which isn't to say that are happy go lucky guys or even that some of them aren't sometimes corrupt. Corporate people have the same flaws/positives are you and me.

A company/CEO doesn't want to contribute to unemployment. It/He also doesn't want to make it better. It wants to survive and make money/He wants to have a happy life, get married, have kids, maybe buy a Monet, or a big boat with his his big income (big boats get built by not rich people who get jobs because rich people want to buy big boats). (I use the word "he" because most CEOs are he's. If you think that's stereotypical then sue me). Just because a company has people working overseas don't not mean they do not want people working in the US. A company wants to be able to be successful everywhere, but it will employ people where it can be so in a most cost effective way. It is worth noting that foreign companies employ people in the United States. Also, the world economy is growing. It is not 1948 anymore where the U.S. sat towering over the world.

Can you point to specific examples of this?

Do you mean this literally as to imply people who are actual slaves (I am not talking recognized by law as such necessarily but defacto, as in people held in bondage and forced to work)?

I am aware of a case where a political dissident reported to, for example toys and Christmas lights being made in Chinese prison.



What do you mean by "supporting imperalism?" I would not support the forcible annexation of territories for any purpose. I may have not understood what you meant however.

In terms of outsourcing in regards to "high vs. low skill" jobs. Large companies today, with the capacities of modern technologies are more then capable of setting of entire breaches overseas. Therefor, it would be impracticable to speak in terms of such restrictions. McDonald's, for example, has operations in Europe, Japan, and China. But, obviously, they cannot transport American personal there to run every position. On the other hand, sometimes corporations do hire (and this is not just in reference to American corporations) foreigners with experience to advice on affairs and sometimes even to attempt to adjust the culture of the corporation.

In terms of out sourcing the "mining industry," miners (on the ground, not necessarily those who run the operations) tend to be people on the ground anyway. It wouldn't matter whether it was an American company with an African mine, or an African company with an American mine.

I do agree that I would like underdeveloped economies improved.

Jimservo, your graph was produced by the Bush Administration. That’s not to say its data is wholly inaccurate, it just that it uses numbers that show a positive outcome when in translation it is negative for the vast majority of working people. Yes, overall trade has increased because imports have gone through the roof. They seemed to have lumped imports and exports together on that graph. Sure GDP has gone up over the years, but for who? Averaging in the profits made by the top few percent gives the wrong impression that we are all gaining.

Yes tariffs will slow international trade, but they will also increase domestic consumption of American made products. Constantly increasing international trade is not some virtue in itself, especially from the perspective of the U.S. Foreign countries end up doing the selling, and we do the buying.

Americans buying foreign goods is less a function of quality as it is availability. The U.S doesn’t produce anything anymore, comparatively speaking. Go to Wallmart, or any retail outlet, and try to find the “Made In The USA” label. It’s almost non-existent. The U.S. did manufacture quality televisions and VCR’s, and for a brief period the consumer could choose between foreign and domestic brands. That period was brief because foreign products had comparable quality at a fraction of the cost. Who would pay four times the price for the same item? Nobody, so domestic companies had the choice of moving overseas or going under.

This gets to the crux of the problem with free-trade. When an American company competes with a foreign company that can pay its workers 50 cents an hour, pay little in taxes, not worry about workmens-comp or insurance, have very little regulation, and dump its waste products in a nearby river, you have a situation where the American company can not possibly be competitive in the same market. That is what free trade has done to America.



You’re using some guy’s blog as a reference? curiouscatblog.com Look, either of us can find any sort of information to support a particular viewpoint. What is undeniable is that U.S. manufacturing was the backbone of the American economy and now it’s gone. It either left the country or went under, and with it went the trade surplus and gainful employment for the common man.







My observations of the local community are very similar to what I read others saying around the country.
Indeed, home purchases have risen in recent times. Sub-prime lending and interest-only loans have been major factors for this, and we have probably reached the end of that banking scam. Foreclosures are on the rise and look to reclaim the unsound mortgage practices of the past decade.

Dollar stores and fast food is a sign of high quality living? I suppose if you contrast America to some third-world sewer you might have a point. I think comparing the difference in the quality of life we had a generation ago is far more telling of where we're at and where we are heading.

Depends how you look at it...