Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Hap on August 27, 2007, 10:45:54 PM
-
http://buchanan.org/blog/?p=827
Buchanan's compelling, as usual, portrayal of what will hit America like a ton of bricks sometime in what, mabye 20 years or less? It's my guess on the timing, not his.
Take 1 min and read it.
The bubble has burst, yet not quite all the air has dissipated.
-
There's quite alot of crap in the article.
He forgets that the USA is no longer the only industrial might in the world and there's competition. The world no longer has to buy products from the USA like after the WWII. An isolationist politics wouldn't help the freedom country either - People wants to buy goods from abroad, now that the US industry isn't the only one producing quality products. Try to prevent people from getting foreign goods and dissent will grow. Unless, of course, they'd rather prefer to be a part of non-freedom country.
"But they rebate that VAT tax on exports to the United States and stick a 19 percent VAT equivalent on all imports from America. Without calling it a tariff and a subsidy, it is a tariff and a subsidy."
This is complete BS argument, when he compares VAT to a tariff and a subsidy. What about the 7% or so VAT in the state of NY? It's the same thing as the european VAT. The stores in NY can sell goods VAT free to a state with 0% VAT. Same applies to european goods - destination VAT is applied to the price, not the origin VAT. VAT is applied to all goods, foreign and local.
-
Originally posted by Fishu
"But they rebate that VAT tax on exports to the United States and stick a 19 percent VAT equivalent on all imports from America. Without calling it a tariff and a subsidy, it is a tariff and a subsidy."
This is complete BS argument, when he compares VAT to a tariff and a subsidy. What about the 7% or so VAT in the state of NY? It's the same thing as the european VAT. The stores in NY can sell goods VAT free to a state with 0% VAT. Same applies to european goods - destination VAT is applied to the price, not the origin VAT. VAT is applied to all goods, foreign and local.
Whats he moaning about? The US slaps tarrifs on NZ imports all the freakin time. Typical ignorant politician - pot meet kettle.
-
Gonna need some Asian management.
-
Sorry, but that "opinion" by Buchanan is nonsense. He's just telling people what they want to hear instead of telling them what they don't want to hear - the truth. His premise and almost every sentence is wrong.
I don't even know where to begin, it's such nonsense. Just follow the money and you'll understand who in America is "responsible." Manufacturing in America will continue to decline and those responsible for it will continue to profit from its decline.
-
Pat seems to have missed the boat by blaming every other country on this.
Our own federal government needs to make it easier for our companies to do business in this country.
We sell plenty of American vehicles all over the world, and up until recently Ford was the best selling brand worldwide.
We have to look at what our on govt does to manufacturing in this country, once we realize we are the problem we may be able to fix it.
-
what fishu said
buchanan claiming that vat or gst as it's know in other countries is subsidies or tarrifs by stealth is complete rubbish. beats me why he would say that because he can't be that ignorant, or at least he didnt appear to be when I use to see him on crossfire.
it seems as if hes trying to use the rest of the world as a whipping boy to drum up domestic support for an isolationist agenda
We sell plenty of American vehicles all over the world, and up until recently Ford was the best selling brand worldwide
how many of those fords sold out side of america were made in america?
lots of fords on the roads here in nz but very few of them are american made because of the cost and because few models are avalible in right hand drive. two or three years ago new base model v8 mustangs were selling here for close to nz$100k. of course the conversion to right hand drive added considerably to the price. why bother, you can get an aussie v8 ford with better performance for half the price and the steering wheel is where its suppose to be straight from the factory. there are more american made vehicles here than say ten years ago but generally though american auto makers have been preocupied with the domestic market and ignored foreign markets.
-
you guys need to start driving on the right side of the road.
lazs
-
“WE HAVE MET THE ENEMY AND HE IS US.”
-
Originally posted by lazs2
you guys need to start driving on the right side of the road.
lazs
No, no, no. Left is right. Right is wrong. Its simple really. All the truly great countries of the world know this.
:aok
-
Originally posted by lazs2
you guys need to start driving on the right side of the road.
lazs
I thought in kalifornia they drove on both sides of the road...
-
Originally posted by Rolex
Sorry, but that "opinion" by Buchanan is nonsense. He's just telling people what they want to hear instead of telling them what they don't want to hear - the truth. His premise and almost every sentence is wrong.
I don't even know where to begin, it's such nonsense. Just follow the money and you'll understand who in America is "responsible." Manufacturing in America will continue to decline and those responsible for it will continue to profit from its decline.
That is because Buchanan is nonsense most of the time. Manufacturing in the US will definitely continue to decline, and that is not necessarily a bad thing, unless of course you are in manufacturing with no other skills and have ignored the writing on the wall.
-
We dont have much of a work ethic here in America anymore. Heck, you dont even have to work if you dont want to. We subsidize professional babymaking/cracksmoking. That, and we allow unchecked illegal immigration which is just another form of welfare because we pay for all the services for the illegals while they dont pay nothing back in the form of taxes. I'm talking millions and millions of people here. Who do you think pays when they get sick, have babies, or send their kids to public schools?
The problems of America? First off everyone thinks they have something coming from Govt., even illegal immigrants. Secondly everyone thinks the well is always going to be full. Be it their credit cards of the Govt. One day its all going to pop, and when it does, its going to be a bad one. At least during the Great Depression we had an industrious population willing to work to get us out of it. Now what do we have? A bunch of sniveling whiners on SSN because their back hurts, or, they have anxiety disorder.
-
I know very little about the different taxes on importing and exporting goods. What I do know is the fact that the paper company where I have spent the last thirty years of my life has had to shut down two paper machines. A lot of this is due to the competition from China. It is difficult to compete with a country which has very little regulations concerning the environment and we have to spend millions (with no return on investment ) just so we can operate. I agree it is the right thing to do but it makes it hard to compete. The cost for labor is also low in the Asian countries which makes it also hard to compete. The price to live as free people has not gotten any cheaper and we are lucky to negotiate a 2% raise each year (which BTW is usually the cost increase of our health insurance).
I for one am glad that the manufacturers that are in bed with the communist Chinese are taking a big hit on recalls. I am sorry that anyone was hurt because of the defective products but the company owners don't mind the risk if it makes their wallets fatter.
If we were to get into a war with China, Wal-Mart would go out of business and we couldn't even make uniforms for our troops or probably a lot of other supplies which some other government supplier is buying from them.
Swoose
BTW I appreciate all the check sixes I get. My SA is not good
-
We need quality control back in manufacturing in America! It's really sad when I am consciously willing to pay more for an American made product that is a piece of crap. The sad part is that I won't continue to do that, which contributes to the death spiral of American manufacturing.
Regards,
Malta
-
All this *****ing and moaning. If the American Manufacturing industry isn't lazy and isn't failing, then you get your bellybutton into owning one of these companies.
Get back to us with the results.
-
I can' t speak for the rest of the manufacturing but we did all we could to help make cheaper and better paper before we were shutdown. The "shareholders "were not satisfied.
I don't think lazy describes the effort we made. Our work force is cut so thin now there is no room for laziness.
-
Originally posted by BigGun
That is because Buchanan is nonsense most of the time. Manufacturing in the US will definitely continue to decline, and that is not necessarily a bad thing, unless of course you are in manufacturing with no other skills and have ignored the writing on the wall.
The decline of manufacturing definitely is a bad thing for the United States. If you are not manufacturing products then all you are doing is consuming products. The United States is already the largest single consumer market in the world, if it was not for our manufacuring that we still have helping offsetting the trade deficit that we currently have we would be so far in debt to foreign countries that you might as well plant a Chinese flag on the capital and call it done.
It is not entirely about laziness or poor quality control. It is more about standard of living. It is very difficult to compete with a country that not only subsidizes their industry, but also only pays the equivalent of a dollar or two a day in wages, and the workers have no recourse to object their low pay, and poor living conditions.
Our government is very much to blame for our present situation, by not taking into account the living conditions and environmental conditions in the countries we trade with. China is a prime example of this, the living and environmental conditions are third world at best yet we have no penalties imposed on their imports to address these issues. So our products are unfairly put at a disadvantage, because we care about our people and our environnment.
-
The decline of manufacturing is nothing more then a signal of the switch to a service industry. Only people who know nothing of economics would think it's a bad thing.
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
The decline of manufacturing is nothing more then a signal of the switch to a service industry. Only people who know nothing of economics would think it's a bad thing.
Let me guess, you have an MA in economics. Just another example of why society in the U.S. is going down the toilet.
A service industry only works if you have something to service, and can afford the service.
When the U.S. is no longer producing anything and no one can afford your services you tell me it's a good thing.
What made this country great, and makes countries powerful is the ability to manufacture, be it toys, guns, or computers. If you seriously think that a country can maintain a standard of living that we here in the States have become accustomed too by just providing services. You are going to have a rude awakening, when we no longer produce anything and you are sneeking across the border into Mexico looking for a job.
-
laser,
what happens when we also ship alot of our service jobs over seas?
Ie India for IT.
Then what, what will we do Mr. Economist.
Oh wait we can all go work in the financial industry, perfect when most of the country would be unemployed and broke.
-
Originally posted by SIK1
The decline of manufacturing definitely is a bad thing for the United States. If you are not manufacturing products then all you are doing is consuming products. The United States is already the largest single consumer market in the world, if it was not for our manufacuring that we still have helping offsetting the trade deficit that we currently have we would be so far in debt to foreign countries that you might as well plant a Chinese flag on the capital and call it done.
I guess it is all a matter of what you consider a bad thing. More efficient use of capital is a good thing. I am a firm believer in capitalism and free markets. If a local company costs $10 to make a widget, and another company in another country can produce the same widget for $8 (including shipping costs to send it around the world), one of two things will happen in the long run. 1) the local company will improve to produce the widget at $8, or 2) the company will go out of business and the capital will be redistributed to more productive uses. How am I any worse off?
The notion we might as well plant a chinese flag is ridiculous. It almost sounds like the comments from the late 80s with the Japanese. Look at the how well they did with investing our $. They sure did good with alll the capital investments in the US. Pebble Beach? Rock center?
Tariffs and taxes just create inefficiencies. As far as trade deficit, the can and do continue for long times. Last fall I had the opportunity to have lunch and speak with Art Laffer down at Torrey Pines. He has interesting comments and thoughts about trade deficits, and how the persist because of the strong financial structure of the US. Some of his writings on the subject are a worthy read.
With my job, we invest capital around the globe, both private and public investments. A main focus is highest return on our $ for the given level of risk. If I buy shares of company X, they better be focused on return. It is their duty. I own a piece of the company. They better not be trying to transact in $10 widgets, if the market for widgets is $8. If they do, I sell my shares with everyone else and the company goes out of business. Hell, my goal is to invest with the next guy that can produce widgets for $4. It will turn out to be good return, much better than the company that produces widgets for $10.
Edited, just found article from Laffer about trade deficit. I am only econ graduate, no phd. Art is pretty well qualified though. Destination USA (http://www.globalpolicy.org/socecon/crisis/tradedeficit/2005/0103laffer.htm)
-
Sik, good post.
Our government actually makes it easier for overseas companies to do business here than domestic.
Look at the tax codes alone, especially on equipment amortization.
Free market is great when its free trade for both sides. It doesnt work when companies are subsidized by their govt and can therefore sell goods for a cheaper price.
-
I own a piece of the company. If they do, I sell my shares with everyone else and the company goes out of business.
Thank you for proving my point about the shareholders not being happy. All you care about is the bottom line and not the amount of people that are put out of work with families to free,put clothes on their back and educate them.
BTW are you a Republican?
Swoose
-
families to free
Correction: Families to feed.
-
Originally posted by stockli
laser,
what happens when we also ship alot of our service jobs over seas?
Ie India for IT.
Then what, what will we do Mr. Economist.
You wait patiently for the cost of living to continue increasing in India, then relocate your services to a cheaper country.
or you take advantage of the political backlash and poor service results from the companies that relocated, and ramp up your marketing for a locally provided service and leech their customers away.
-
Indy you are assuming you have money to relocate to a knew country after having gone through a recession or depression.
Furthermore, the political backlash will not happen as most of the voting population are sheep and have not a clue except what politicians tell them
-
"I own a piece of the company. If they do, I sell my shares with everyone else and the company goes out of business"
that's very interesting, just who do you sell your shares to? Also those shares are on the secondary market, the company already has the money from the original sale of the shares. So why would the company go out of business because the share price fell?
are you sure you work for a investment company?
-
Originally posted by swoose
I own a piece of the company. If they do, I sell my shares with everyone else and the company goes out of business.
Thank you for proving my point about the shareholders not being happy. All you care about is the bottom line and not the amount of people that are put out of work with families to free,put clothes on their back and educate them.
BTW are you a Republican?
Swoose
I have a fiduciary duty to earn the highest return for a level of risk. It is a serious duty, and no where in fiduciary duty is it concern with putting clothes on peoples back. In fact there is plenty of case law that shows I would be violating my fiduciary duty if I used social issues such as that in the decision making process.
I figure the $10s of thousand the government takes from me each year is being used to educate & cloth them. (Jokingly stated)
Bottomline, shareholders own the company, not anyone else. Some shareholders have social agendas, some don't. If you don't like an action of a company, buy some shares of it & vote your proxies.
Probably more of an independent that leans heavily to republican party. If I were to label myself as either democrat or republican, the republican all the way.
-
Originally posted by swoose
I own a piece of the company. If they do, I sell my shares with everyone else and the company goes out of business.
Thank you for proving my point about the shareholders not being happy. All you care about is the bottom line and not the amount of people that are put out of work with families to free,put clothes on their back and educate them.
BTW are you a Republican?
Swoose
If a stock isn't doing well, and its prospects for doing well start to vanish, a stockholder should pull out. Staying in to keep a failing company on life support is both stupid on a personal level, in that it will drain your own resources, thus putting your own family out on the street(figuratively), as it is stupid on a larger level. Resources need to be put to efficient use, and while providing financial crutches for companies can be good, it is just as often a futile waste of wealth. Those same resources can be invested elsewhere, thus nurturing something that is not diseased at its core.
People invest to make a profit. If you have a problem with that basic principal, don't engage in it.
-
Originally posted by Scherf
Gonna need some Asian management.
and workers who are happy with a bowl of rice for a 12hr day at work
unions chased manufacturing overseas
-
Originally posted by john9001
"I own a piece of the company. If they do, I sell my shares with everyone else and the company goes out of business"
that's very interesting, just who do you sell your shares to? Also those shares are on the secondary market, the company already has the money from the original sale of the shares. So why would the company go out of business because the share price fell?
are you sure you work for a investment company?
I don't work for an investment company, but for a pension plan & am responsible for investments of approximately $5 billion. Sell shares on the open market, and it doesn't matter who buys them. If the price declines to zero, the company will be bankrupt.
The point is that you cannot buy widgets from a supplier that costs $10 to produce if the market/competitor is doing it at $8 a widget. If you persist at that, you will be out of business. The math in the example is pretty simple really. In easy form: Profit= (Revenue from sale of Widget) minus (production cost of widget)
-2=8-10 (losing $2 per widget sold, not a good return proposition)
-
Originally posted by swoose
I own a piece of the company. If they do, I sell my shares with everyone else and the company goes out of business.
Thank you for proving my point about the shareholders not being happy. All you care about is the bottom line and not the amount of people that are put out of work with families to feed ,put clothes on their back and educate them.
BTW are you a Republican?
Swoose
Guess what Swoose. THE POINT OF INVESTING IS TO MAKE MONEY!!!! This is not a revolutionary idea. If there is no money to be made, then there wouldn't be any investing. There wouldn't be any business. There would not be any society.
You try to guilt me with what happens to the people who lose out on these businesses. But I really don't care about anyone who will not help themselves. If you see your boat sinking, you don't ride it til you're under water, and then ask for help! If you see your boat sinking, you immediately look for life rafts! I.E. A way to get out!
Eagler makes a great point. One of the major causes of shipping jobs overseas are the Unions. The unions were good when they started. They formed a symbiotic relationship between the owner and the worker. The owner got better workers, and the workers got better pay.
But recently, the Unions have become detrimental parasites. They suck the life out of both the workers and the owners for no other reason then self sustainment. You only need to look at the Auto industry to see how Unions have ruined one of the great American industries.
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
But recently, the Unions have become detrimental parasites. They suck the life out of both the workers and the owners for no other reason then self sustainment. You only need to look at the Auto industry to see how Unions have ruined one of the great American industries.
Eagler & Laser nailed it. There's a reason that Toyota can come here and setup very profitable factories, and good news from Detroit is exceedingly rare. Not only are their production tolerances higher, their business model is better, and they effectively keep unions out of their factories while still offering very good pay and benefits.
-
Originally posted by BigGun
I Sell shares on the open market, and it doesn't matter who buys them. If the price declines to zero, the company will be bankrupt.
i don't think you understand, the company got their money when they sold the stock on the IPO, (initial purchase offer). you are dealing in secondary stock sales, if the stock price falls it will only affect the people that own the stock and the CEO who will have to resign and take his $200 million golden parachute.
the only way a company goes bankrupt is when they have no profits and cannot pay their bills, and the stockholders do not "own" the company, they own stock in the company, if the company goes bankrupt the creditors own the company.*
* see K-Mart.
-
We are still GIVING money to the Katrina Bums. Government subsidize the lazy, the ignorant, the non-American..... the Government constantly supports the useless and the useless just have more kids (why not we have to support them too) that learn to live off others.
We should just let Nature take her course. Thin out the herd.
-
Originally posted by john9001
i don't think you understand, the company got their money when they sold the stock on the IPO, (initial purchase offer). you are dealing in secondary stock sales, if the stock price falls it will only affect the people that own the stock and the CEO who will have to resign and take his $200 million golden parachute.
the only way a company goes bankrupt is when they have no profits and cannot pay their bills, and the stockholders do not "own" the company, they own stock in the company, if the company goes bankrupt the creditors own the company.*
* see K-Mart.
I see you like to play with semantics. Stockholders (equity) own an interest in all the net value of a company (assets minus liabilities).
-
Instinctively, a drop in manufacturing may be alarming. Here's my perspective and analogy of the situation:
Think of the US as a town within a country. Historically this town has been a coal mining town. The belief among the coal mining families in this town is that working the mines is what counts and if you aren't working the mines, you aren't really working. Now imagine that the newest generation has children who want to do other things; some of them become doctors, inventors, chefs, authors and even computer game developers. As the number of miners diminish, the coal mining families begin to worry, after all; working the mines is what counts and if you aren't working the mines, you aren't really working. But the doctors, inventors, chefs, authors and computer game developers earn better salaries than typical miners. Even though the mine output isn't what it used to be, the town's economy is really just fine. The mining families have trouble understanding that books, games and ideas can truly replace rail cars of coal. They do appreciate having better health care and fine dining, however. Neighboring towns may now be producing the coal and may be doing better than they have in the past; but that's no indication that the progressive town isn't better off.
-
I understand Hap's longing to return to his roots and good old days... (I'm kidding Hap ;) ) Hap spent his life in steel manufacturing and he and I discussed manufacturing more than a few times here in the past, particularly about the decline of heavy manufacturing in the US.
Not only does Buchanan persist in spreading myths, so do others here.
1. Manufacturing is not dead in America. Manufacturing contribution to real (inflation adjusted) GDP has been relatively stable for the last 30 years at 16-18%.
2. Domestic factors played a large role in the decline of manufacturing employment. Increased productivity and automation eliminated many jobs, not simply shifting them overseas.
3. Direct investment in the US by foreign companies has contributed to keeping more Americans employed in US manufacturing. For example, Japanese companies employ more people outside Japan than inside Japan. And contrary to the myth, profits are not repatriated to Japan. They count as consolidated earnings, but the foreign units, such as in the US, operate as separate P&L centers. The profits are retained earnings (something US companies have almost completely discarded in favor of executive consumption of profits) and reinvested into equipment, R&D or facilities for growth, eliminating the costs of credit for investment.
4. I say the following with no malice toward BigGun. I believe you are sincere in your fiduciary duty to your clients, but there is, in my opinion, a fundamental flaw in the American philosophy of competition. Instead of seriously competing in the global market with a unified goal, the US is eating itself by pitting Americans against Americans under the guise of competition. Only in America would a pension fund be willing to destroy the pensions of other citizens, and tell them they were doing it for their own good because they were inefficient.
A sense of class warfare has evolved. The investor and executive classes are willing to sacrifice their employees' long-term future for a quick buck. What about the fiduciary duty to invest in and make the best decisions for a company for growth and not simply gamble on the stock price, abandoning the company when investment is most needed?
5. People who "play" economics using the freshman course model of a market economy as their only source of answers and opinions are still just playing. There is no true free-market model in reality, so those opinions are better left in the freshman classroom. They are irrelevant to the real world. There will never be enough real service industry jobs to outgrow the decline in other jobs.
If you back out the health care and fear-of-terror industries, there has been no growth in US employment in the last 6 years. None. All the gains have been in those two industries alone and investing in those industries is a path to nowhere. Average real income has declined in the past six years also. If you look at the history of the economics of war, you see that the diversion of investment from long-term growth industries and jobs begins to take a toll after four years. We're there now and the burden is being piled onto the coming burden of the baby boomer retirement. Which leads to this...
6. The persistence of the current health care model for the US is strangling the life out of the nations competitive potential.
-
Counterpoint. (http://www.freetrade.org/pubs/pas/tpa-035es.html)
The year 2006 was a record year for output, revenues, profits, profit rates, and return on investment in the manufacturing sector. And despite all the stories about the erosion of U.S. manufacturing primacy, the United States remains the world’s most prolific manufacturer—producing two and a half times more output than those vaunted Chinese factories in 2006.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
you guys need to start driving on the right side of the road.
lazs
we have to drive on the left cause we're socialist, and besides if we switched to the right the japanese would have no where to export their knackered used right hand drive cars too anymore.
-
QUOTE]Originally posted by Eagler
and workers who are happy with a bowl of rice for a 12hr day at work
unions chased manufacturing overseas [/QUOTE]
tame the unions as they have been here in nz and you might find that it doesnt solve the problems of competing with payed with peanuts sweat shop labour. the answer i think is to minimize the damage to the manufacturing sector by making it a lot easier for domestic manufacturers to compete and at the same time giving them incentive not to relocate to asia - by reducing their costs, by cutting red tape and compliance costs, tax brakes etc
for it to work it needs a government with business acumen and an aggressive determination to put the interests of it's country above self interest. unfortunately we dont have a such a government, the tax and spend mob running the show here in nz couldnt organize an orgy in a brothel and are more than happy to let the country bleed in the pursuit of their own bent ideological agenda.
(http://media.apn.co.nz/webcontent/image/gif/cartoon27Aug.gif)
-
Originally posted by Excel1
Originally posted by Eagler
and workers who are happy with a bowl of rice for a 12hr day at work
unions chased manufacturing overseas
tame the unions as they have been here in nz and you might find that it doesnt solve the problems of competing with payed with peanuts sweat shop labour. the answer i think is to minimize the damage to the manufacturing sector by making it a lot easier for domestic manufacturers to compete and at the same time giving them incentive not to relocate to asia - by reducing their costs, by cutting red tape and compliance costs, tax brakes etc
for it to work it needs a government with business acumen and an aggressive determination to put the interests of it's country above self interest. unfortunately we dont have a such a government, the tax and spend mob running the show here in nz couldnt organize an orgy in a brothel and are more than happy to let the country bleed in the pursuit of their own bent ideological agenda.
(http://media.apn.co.nz/webcontent/image/gif/cartoon27Aug.gif) [/B]
Almost everyone who argues that manufacturers leaving isn't bad, are going to agree with you that tax cuts are a good idea, no matter what the time.
-
Originally posted by Rolex
I understand Hap's longing to return to his roots and good old days... (I'm kidding Hap ;) ) Hap spent his life in steel manufacturing and he and I discussed manufacturing more than a few times here in the past, particularly about the decline of heavy manufacturing in the US.
Sales, service, education, sales, and service in that order over 30 years.
If I did say I spent my time in steel, I was lying, or mistyped something awfully.
And, I do long to return to America's roots and good old days of a well employed and well paid blue collar class.
-
My mistake, Hap. It must have been Habu.
-
Ok folks I hear what you are saying about stocks and shareholders ect. I know you are in the business of making as much money as you can. But how much is enough and what are you willing for others to sacrifice so you can do it?
I think companies should make the shareholders happy and try to reduce cost and run more efficiently. But the ones who really have to make it happen are the employees. The managers can manage all they want but its the guy or gal with their hands on the equipment that make it happen. They should reap part of the benefits as well as the managers. Being a member of the ones with their hands on the equipment I have a different outlook on things verses the guys sitting in the office crunching numbers all day. I just hope for your sake they decide number crunchers are not cost effective or productive. I am not being sarcastic but sympathetic.
Most employees are not lazy or non caring about what happens to their company. I work at a paper mill in North Carolina which is union. We have our share of lazy folks but most are very dedicated to making money for this company. The company makes money and we keep a job and we make money. Pretty simple concept. I have been here 30 years myself and hope to retire from here. We were recently sold to a Canadian paper company and are still waiting to see how things work out. One of the brown board paper machines that was shutdown here was making a profit but was shutdown so the mil could be sold as a fine paper mill. More folks out of work because of shareholder profits. Sorry couldn't resist.
It is a double edged sword because I want my pension to be as big as possible and I would want you to do what is necessary to do that for me. I think we can agree that if American manufacturing doesn't change we will have no manufacturing.
We have a great country and I hate to see the way it is heading. I don't know what it will take for us to wake up but I hope it happens soon.
BTW spent about 7 week all toll in the bay area. Mostly Cupertino. Nice area beautiful scenery.
:aok
Swoose
-
But recently, the Unions have become detrimental parasites. They suck the life out of both the workers and the owners for no other reason then self sustainment.
Laser,
I agree that you invest to make money and that that is what makes the world go around. What is going to happen if the trend keeps up in all the foreign manufacturing? Will you then buy and sell in whatever currency the Chinese have? We need to protect our industries and look after American so you can have the ability to buy and sell and make the money you want to make.
The statement about the unions is not new. I can't speak for other unions around the country but as I stated in a previous post I work in a union mill which was recently sold. One of the selling points was the good relationship that the unions represented here had with the company. We have always worked together to solve problems and try to make this a better company. Please don't include us in the countries overseas problems.
I enjoy sharing opinions with you guys and it's good that we can agree to disagree. Hope to see you in the cartoon skies. :aok
Swoose
-
I would have to say I agree alot with what Rolex stated in a few posts above.
I truely believe health care in the US is a huge problem, expensive, and don't begin to think I know what the answer.
Rolex, wasn't quite sure what you meant about a pension fund destroying the pensions of citizens. The investment earnings over a long period of time are the primary way pensions will be paid in the future.
Also, I didn't state we are in it for the quick buck, and if I did I mis-spoke. We invest for the long term, across multiple asset classes and multiple types of companies. Range is anywhere from early to late venture, or large mature public companies. The focus is also global. We put money in distressed situations to help a company turn around, or provide capital for companies trying to get a start. Instead of destroying jobs, in a lot of instances jobs are created. The total amount of institutional assets invested in private equity (long term investing) is huge on an annual basis. However, we do not make any investments without the expectation to make money. The point was (and maybe I didn't make it clearly) that in the global economy today, if a company persists in not being competitive, the long term return on the company is grim.
I also totally agree that economic theory and reality are far apart. The goal is to try and make reality match the theory as much as possible.
-
Hi BigGun,
I wasn't implying anything specific about you or your fund. It was more of a rhetorical question, since I have seen some retirement funds be part of a group involved in a predatory relationship intended to parcel off parts of a company by terminating near-retirement employees to make it more attractive for sale.
In general, I think the "foreign threat" is overstated and distracts the public from the greater threat of true fiscal insolvency of the US in the coming generation from unresolved health care obligations.
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
The decline of manufacturing is nothing more then a signal of the switch to a service industry. Only people who know nothing of economics would think it's a bad thing.
a service industry? you mean like a help desk in India?
-
Pat Buchanan is right on the mark. US NEEDS its' manufacturing base especially in the event of war with communist china. It is no secret that communist china is building a blue water navy and their first target will be the country of Taiwan.
We should never allow a friend like Taiwan to fall under communist domination, no matter what it may cost us.
US companies can compete when they are on a LEVEL playing field. When communist china picks out specific industries then floods the market with cheap subsidized knock-offs the US company in its' sights fails then they control the market and we lose that manufacturing asset.
I know how hard my own state has been hit by textile imports from communist china. As recently as the mid to late 80's we had LITERALLY tens of thousands of jobs in textiles in my county go the way of the dinosaur. Now there are fewer than 500 people in our county employed in textiles. The economy in our area has never been extremely diverse, you either worked in textiles, the 'bomb plant' (15,000 work there still), on a farm or in the medical industry as our area is a regional medical center. If not, your business catered to those who worked in those fields.
We have lost the ability to even clothe ourselves as a nation in the event of a war with communist china. I am sure the auto industry is already in the sights of these people, just like they have taken over the electronics industry and a few others. The sad part is, we screwed ourselves out of vital jobs and industries as well as our own independence to some degree.
communist china does not compete with us equally in the areas of pay, employee benefits, working conditions, human rights, quality of products, environmental standards, product safety nor any other of major concern or REQUIREMENT for most US companies. I say Pat is dead on the mark. We need to be sure that if our companies are going to compete on the open market that they are truly competing on an even playing field. If the communist chinese (or any other) products are not manufactured under the same conditions that ours are, they should not be flooding our markets.
-
It's my understanding that Walmart has played a significant role in the move of manufacturing capacity from the U.S. to China, by continually pressuring suppliers to reduce costs. One way the suppliers accomplish this is to move manufacturing offshore - to China.
No doubt there are many causes and contributing factors though.
-
Originally posted by oboe
It's my understanding that Walmart has played a significant role in the move of manufacturing capacity from the U.S. to China, by continually pressuring suppliers to reduce costs. One way the suppliers accomplish this is to move manufacturing offshore - to China.
No doubt there are many causes and contributing factors though.
I have a suspicion that this is not what Wal-mart does. From my travels and trials of frozen pizza due to being a college student, I noticed something about them.
You could buy the same pizza from a super market and from Wal-Mart, and the the wal-mart pizza will be about .75-1.00 inches in diameter less then the exact same pizza from elsewhere.
I hypothesize that to keep making a profit from Wal-Mart sales, companies will undercut product sizes. If I had the money, time and patience, I'd do a consumer study purchasing food items from Wal-Mart and from other stores and comparing whether or not the weight or amounts listed on the cover coincide with the actual amount of food there.
I have heard from local suppliers who worked with Wal-Mart is that wal-mart would offer a fair price for their product for a year, but sell them for so low that they either had to be making no money or taking a hit in the profit category for that specific product. Then, after a year Wal-Mart reduces how much they will pay the local producer by 15-25%. The local producer would have become dependent on the money coming in from Wal-mart, would have to find someway other then ending the sale to make money.
-
Originally posted by oboe
It's my understanding that Walmart has played a significant role in the move of manufacturing capacity from the U.S. to China, by continually pressuring suppliers to reduce costs. One way the suppliers accomplish this is to move manufacturing offshore - to China.
No doubt there are many causes and contributing factors though.
Wal Mart is the biggest retailer in the world for one reason only...........people shop there!
We (the buying public) drove manufacturing to China because we liked the cheap prices at WalMart. We sure didn't care how those prices got there.
-
Originally posted by Eagler
and workers who are happy with a bowl of rice for a 12hr day at work
unions chased manufacturing overseas
The Japanese will be shocked. They were supposed to get a bowl of rice?
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
Almost everyone who argues that manufacturers leaving isn't bad, are going to agree with you that tax cuts are a good idea, no matter what the time.
I agree, but its a bit more serious than the usual "i pay too much tax" whine when years of left wing ideological driven policies of high direct and indirect taxes stifles economic prosperity by strangling economic development and in particular the manufacturing export sector, and at the same time making the country about as attractive to foreign investors as herpes ; to a point where gdp per capita, and therefore standard of living slides down the oecd rankings like a rock. If thats not bad enough the clueless socialist a-holes want to "financially encourage and assist" nz businesses to set up off shore using taxpayers money .i.e. paying for the employment of foreigners in foreign countries instead of nz'ers in nz. they need to be put up against a wall and shot...and i think we still have more than enough guns to do it.
-
The solution of the problem is very simple.
There should not be any welfare/allowance for unemployed people, but people should have a right to work. If you do not want to work you do not get money. Very simple but very effective. ;)
-
I hope I'm wrong, and all will go well for any teenagers in the O'Club and those of you between 40 and 30 too.
I've another decade on 40, and am well aware of many of the reasons sited by posters here that show that America is in great shape economically now. Also, with the demise of the evil unions, and the evil democrats, the future should be so bright we'll have to wear shades.
I belong to a union. But if you compared what it does for the workers compared to what a good union did back in 1950 or '55 lets say, there's no comparision. It does not do much.
Why unions in the first place? Certainly they were unnecessary. Right? The wages paid to workers were "fair and balanced," before unions, right?
As to manufacturing, since we no longer make what we use, that circumstance is not a good one.
Why is that not blatantly apparant to so many here who posted otherwise? Are you sold on "doctrine?"
What do you do with people when they are no longer needed?
-
excel... I think that America is heading toward what you have there.. high taxes to fund socialism. It never works anywhere except for a few at the top and bottom.
lazs
-
your right lasz, socialism is nothing more than a power grab for control of the masses, and when applied even in moderation leads to at the least, mediocrity. its an out dated parasitic ideology that is a perverse corruption of egalitarian principles. it doesnt work and it never will work
-
The United States remains the world's top manufacturing country, its factories producing goods worth $1.49 trillion in 2005, 1.5 times the level in the next country, Japan. And the value of U.S. agricultural production trails that of only China and India.
Even though agriculture now has a small share of GDP, farmers remain economically and politically powerful forces. In 2002 the market value of U.S. farm production amounted to more than $200 billion, including $45 billion for cattle and calves; nearly $40 billion for grains, such as corn and wheat, and oilseeds such as soybeans; nearly $24 billion for poultry and eggs; $20 billion for milk and other dairy products; and $12 billion for hogs and pigs.
Even though the United States has more than 2 million farms, a relatively tiny number of big corporate farms dominate—1.6 percent of farms in 2002 accounted for half of all sales.
Despite its overall trade deficit, the United States has a surplus in agriculture. U.S. farm exports in 2007 are forecast at $78 billion, with the largest share going to Asian countries, although Canada and Mexico account for the largest share of recent growth in agricultural exports. About one-fourth of U.S. farm output is exported.
While the United States maintains a trade surplus in services, it runs a large deficit in merchandise goods trade.
The United States also maintains a trade surplus in services, $79.7 billion in 2006. The biggest U.S. services export category was travel by foreigners to the United States, $85.8 billion that year.
In contrast, the United States runs a large and growing deficit in merchandise goods trade. While the United States exported more than $1 trillion in goods in 2006, it imported more than $1.8 trillion worth.
By far the top imports that year were autos and auto parts, $211.9 billion, and crude oil, $225.2 billion. The top sources of U.S. imports were Canada, China, Mexico, Japan, and Germany.
source (http://usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/economy-in-brief/page3.html)
-
Despite its overall trade deficit, the United States has a surplus in agriculture.
Helped by large farm subsidies.
-
Originally posted by MiloMorai
Helped by large farm subsidies.
If that is the case, perhaps we should subsidise domestic oil production.
-
damn... excel... that was right on the mark!
I also fail to see the problem with holdens logic in that we should subsidize domestic oil production if farm subsidies are working so good.
Fact is.. quit subsidizing farming and it will do just fine.... take the restrictions off the oil companies for exploration and development of oil and they will do fine.
Instead... now people want to subsidize bio fuels and solar and wind and anything that comes down the pike.
If it is evil to subsidize one thing then it is evil to subsidize anything.
lazs