Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (21189)	3/11/2002 10:05:40 PM
From: craig crawford	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 281500

>> however it does decrease the amount of competition which can raise prices << fair enough. >> and it results in less effcient use of resources which reduces total production << i am arguing on several different threads so i can't recall exactly what i have said or haven't said here, but here is a post of mine addressing this issue. Message 17184167 >> As for the claim that free trade benefits the big corporations over individuals that is not true. With restricted trade large corporations can rake in big bucks without having to face as much competition << with unfettered free trade corporations can extort lower wages or just plain lay off american blue collar workers. this is the source of much of the profit and productivity gains of large multinational corporations seen in recent years. of course accounting tricks don't hurt either <g> people talk about how miraculously run companies like ge are. what a crock. they have sold out their american workers, packed up and shipped out. nearly half of ge's employees work outside the united states. as of a few years ago gm was the largest private employer in mexico. i think they might have been taken over by vw. ibm and ford have more foreign employees than domestic. packing up and shipping out jobs previously held by americans is a nice way to skirt taxes, environmental laws, and to exploit cheap labor to increase profits. this may benefit shareholders, and it may benefit the officers of the company, but how does it benefit working americans who have lost their manufacturing jobs to a mexican who will do the same job for 50 cents an hour? being able to lay off well paid americans to exploit cheap labor abroad seems like it hurts individuals in favor of the large multinational corporation to me.

To: TimF who wrote (21189)	3/11/2002 10:20:38 PM
From: craig crawford	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

>> Our wages here can be higher because our productivity is much higher. If trade barriers are lowered world wide then Americans in industries where we do not have a big productivity advantage may lose their jobs but new jobs will be created in areas where we have and advantage << i answered this question on another thread as well. the answer is uncle sam and walmart, the two largest employers in america. Message 17184116 >> Often with the economic growth that is caused by trade the number of employed people goes up all around not just in the low wage countries << like i said, what would all those laid off steelworkers and textile workers do without uncle sam and walmart to employ them? >> With less employment in some areas (where demand does not rise as much as productivity) more people can be employed produceing other things << you are looking at this from the point of view of a paper scribbling economist. america is a country, not a corporation. once someone pointed out your argument to ronald reagan. you know what his response to the notion that we can just find new jobs for displaced workers in manufacturing? he said, well maybe so, but what is the guy going to do to take care of his family in the meantime? that's why simple bottom line economics is not how you run a country.

To: TimF who wrote (21189)	3/11/2002 10:42:19 PM
From: craig crawford	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

real wages have plummeted >> Nonsense. The total of wages and benefits has increased (not every year, year on year but during every 10 or 15 year period). << i'm sorry but you are the one talking nonsense. real wages have been in decline since 1973. >> People have bigger houses, fancier cars, a lot more electronics and computers. << what a nonsensical argument. we have a lot more computers and electronics and fancier cars because of advancements in technology, not because of free trade. >> People have more now then they did 20 years ago or 30 or 40 or 50 years ago. << another silly argument. there are many factors, including technology, but an important one you fail to take into account is the fact that 30, 40, 50 years ago women weren't in the workforce like they are today. 50 years ago it didn't take two workers to buy a nice house and support and send your kids to college. it could be done with one wage earner. now it takes two wage earners and couples struggle to own their own home and provide for a nice large family. >> By being a lot more productive and by being closer to the market for their goods << if we are so much more productive why are companies packing up and shipping out, moving manufacturing abroad? how do you explain GM being the largest private employer in mexico? how do you explain companies like IBM and Ford with more foreign workers than domestic? >> The typical worker making 50 cents a day might be an uneducated child or teenager in a third world country with no advanced production equipment. The free trade might cause the third world worker to lose their job instead because the better paid workers in industrialized countries are more productive << is an american worker more productive than the labor of 40 mexicans? you can hire 40 mexicans for the price of an american. is it the technology that makes us more productive than mexico? obviously that makes no difference, GM has not opened a new assembly plant in the US in around 15 years! you can simply pack up our superior technology and ship it out to mexico or china.