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 : Right Wing Extremist Thread -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: D. Long who wrote (25988)	5/15/2002 1:22:05 PM
From: craig crawford	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 59480

>> The consumer has had it too good? Well, I see. By your own logic: The worker has had it too good, for too long. Doesn't jive, does it << sure it does. the consumer has had it too good for too long because he has learned how to use credit cards and rack up debt, not because he has had a decent wage. >> You present a false alternative. Protectionism and jobs, or free trade and no jobs << remember, protectionism for lack of a better word. like anything else, "protection" can be taken too far. now to answer your question, i am not suggesting that free trade necessarily leads to a net loss in jobs. it's the type of jobs that matter. productive jobs in manufacturing are hurt by free trade, and replaced by relatively useless and unproductive jobs at wal-mart and in the government. >> As a consumer, I consider paying lower prices for equal quality goods a benefit. << of course you do, because you probably work at a job not affected by free trade. free trade is very beneficial to the cultural elites among us. you probably fall within that group so it's only natural that you don't experience the direct negative effects from free trade. >> Oh yes, the horrid multinational boogyman. I forgot. Powerful and corrupt << absolutely. >> ... like the labor unions, you mean << sorry, but that argument doesn't fly. unions have been on the decline for decades. >> You would choose the steel industry, one of, if not THE, most powerful and protected industry interests in the country << absolutely right! you got something right for once. yes, the steel industry in s korea, indonesia, brazil, russia, and japan is heavily protected! so protected that nearly three dozen american companies have gone bankrupt in the last several years. so protected that steel imports have well more than doubled in the past decade. >> As opposed to GM, an evil multinational that employs millions and almost went under due to short sighted protectionism that sheltered it for too long against competition << oh, you mean the gm which used to be the largest employer in america? which a few years ago became the largest private employer in mexico (second only to the government). the same gm which has built 50 plants in mexico in the last 20 years and none in america in the past dozen years? that gm? >> As to American farmers, they produce TOO MUCH food - they drive their own prices down. The US and Canada export the most food on the planet. The textile industry has been in decline for decades. Those jobs are being shipped overseas because its a loss industry. << those jobs are shipped overseas so phil knight can enslave indonesian children at 31 cents an hour to make a pair of nikes for a few dollars and mark them up to sell to americans at $150 a pair. no wonder he is one of the world's richest billionaires. >> What you want is a closed system. Government mandated production and guaranteed wages. No competition. That isn't capitalism. << uh oh. you are running out of ideas to support your assertions so now you are resorting to misrepresenting my position. are you suggesting that our country was not capitalist for around a century and a half when we had a tariff system and didn't pursue free trade? are you suggesting that from our founding until world war two we were not capitalist but in the last half of the 20th century when we brought tariffs down dramatically we were somehow more capitalist? gee, many conservatives argue we are becoming more and more socialist! how do you explain this paradox? small government under a "protectionist" tariff system--exploding government under a system where trade barriers and tariffs have been scrapped? >> Yep, those Mexicans just walked in the door and volunteered to be enslaved, whole families. If those wages are slave wages, what were they making previously? Again, economics is not a zero sum game. That Mexican family, like my Irish ancestors, will gladly work a "slave wage" which is more than they were making before, and gladly work 16 hour days, to better their families << sounds to me like you are trying to rationalize your self-indulgent and materialistic lifestyle by making the absurd claim that you are somehow doing enslaved women and children a favor by giving them a job. of course it's all out of sight, out of mind. why don't you put your theory to a test. go down to the nearest inner city and find a homeless person who is cold and hungry. bring him or her back to your home and have them paint your house, mow your lawn, wash your car, etc and then when they are done offer them 31 cents for every hour they worked. then search your conscience. >> That Mexican family can now afford things above mere subsistance, like Pepsi and Fords << ford! hah, what a crock! ford employs more abroad than americans here at home. all those fords made down in mexico are being shipped back to america. mexico ships 10 times as many cars to us as we ship to them. ford has a nice little situation set up. lay off american workers and force wage concessions on the labor unions, and move production to mexico. pay mexicans $1.50/hr to build cars instead of american workers $20/hr. pocket the $18.50 labor cost difference (less some shipping and other administrative costs). what a racket! i guess ford, ibm, ge, gm aren't as american as apple pie anymore now are they!

To: D. Long who wrote (25988)	5/15/2002 2:12:33 PM
From: craig crawford	Respond to of 59480

>> Unfettered capitalism means unfettered flow of capital and labor to where it can be made the most productive << ok, i'm with you. of course it is more productive to fire your american workers and pay mexicans and chinese a fraction of the wage. more productive for corporate profits. not so productive for the american worker who loses his job and then runs to the democrats to get some social transfer payments while he tries to feed his family. >> You propose the opposite - the government mandated restriction of labor and capital to protect the few and influential << why don't you stick to your own assertions and let me represent mine? once again you mischaracterize my position. but i'll play along just for fun. so you are against the government mandated restriction of labor? i guess that means you want to abolish all the child labor laws. after all, that is a government mandated restriction on labor isn't it? so let it be known that d long is in favor of children in the workforce, all so he can bow to the mantra of unfettered capitalism and free markets. do i detect that you are against government mandated restriction on capital? i guess that means you would have pardoned marc rich if you were president, because you don't believe in laws against trading with the enemy. after all, that would fall under government mandated regulation of capital would it not? >> Protectionism favors those who can afford to lobby for protection << free trade favors those who can afford to lobby for their own corporate greed. powerful and rich multinational corporations who line the pockets of politicians so they will sign more free trade agreements. a steel worker or a textile worker can't lobby as well as general electric or enron. >> Big Business complains the loudest about free trade, and shouts the loudest for protection << hah! you are really full of it. yeah, gm, ibm, ge, ford, microsoft, motorolla, boeing, etc are all against free trade. those tiny companies! what a hoot! >> Maybe for those too lazy to improve their skills. << ahh, now we are seeing your true agenda for what it is. people that work in blue-collar industries such as steel, textiles, farming, etc. are just lazy, and it has nothing to do with being laid off by unpatriotic transnational corporations who have no allegiance to country or their workers. labor is just another expendable asset like plant equipment and costs have to be cut. you sound like you have been indoctrinated quite well by the republican hacks on the radio such as rush limbaugh. is it any wonder that the heartland of america has abandoned the republican party in droves and headed for the democrats? no wonder republicans have to use amnesty to pander to mexicans to try to get re-election votes. conservative reagan democrats have walked. >> Question is: does America want to BOTHER to make all those chopsticks? << does america want to grow its own food? make its own cars, airplanes, memory chips and other critical components for defense and subsistence? >> Or does it want to make something that better utilizes its strengths? << you act as if every american has the same education, aptitudes and capabilities. what about the people who aren't capable of being an entertainer, or being a software programmer? what do they do? they used to have a job building cars that they could do very well. >> Americans make ideas. << well americans used to manufacture goods along with our ideas. at the end of the roaring twenties america accounted for 42% of all world manufactures. are you suggesting we had no ideas in america prior to the thirties? in 1965 31% of the labor force had manufacturing equivalent jobs. now it's 11-12% and in danger of falling into the single digits. are you suggesting we had no ideas back in 1965? >> Ideas make more money, and create BETTER jobs, than chopsticks. << better jobs for cultural elites, yes. not better jobs for the third generation farmers, steel workers, textile workers, auto workers, etc who are out of a job. >> By the same logic, free trade means, according to you, lower wages to keep in step with lower prices. Where's the benefit in your logic? << wages are lower for working americans, not the cultural elites. the elites wages skyrocket under free trade. so the elites make greater income and get lower prices. an all around boon for them. is it any wonder they pound the table so feverishly for free trade? as for working americans, oftentimes they are out of a job completely, so it doesn't matter how much free trade lowers prices. no job and you can't afford anything no matter how cheap it is. of course the ones who do eventually get another job usually get one at walmart or in the government for a lower wage. they may be able to afford cheap consumer items because of free trade, like chopsticks, but they can't afford to invest in stocks, real estate, homes, etc like the elites. so they become a permanent underclass, with just enough wages to keep them from totally revolting.

To: D. Long who wrote (25988)	5/16/2002 1:26:22 PM
From: craig crawford	Respond to of 59480

>> BMW can afford to pass on the costs and still undercut American luxury automobile makers paying $30/hr unskilled labor costs compared to their "slave wage" Mexican labor (to whom the slave wage is an opportunity to escape poverty, because that's a lot of money to him.) << you lost me here. you mean to say that bmw will still produce outside of america and pay the tariff, passing on the costs to the american consumer in the form of higher prices? >> Beneficiary of protectionism: Mexico and BMW. Loser: American consumer and American worker - when the Big 3 nearly go out of business, just like in the 1980s. << your logic escapes me. you demonstrate your lack of knowledge about the effects of tariffs with this statement. >> Because without competition there is no impetus for quality. << oh really? how do you explain the quality of japanese cars considering japan is protectionist and shuts out american competition? >> When Ford can't undercut cheap Japanese vehicles, they have appeal to American consumers with better QUALITY at a comparable price << wrong! do you really think fords are better quality cars than their japanese counterparts? what ford does is lobby politicians for free trade agreements so they can move production abroad and exploit the cheap labor to compete more effectively. great for ford the corporation, according to you great for foreign workers who ford so generously provides employment, but how is this great for america? oh, and don't tell me what is good for ford is good for america. ford employs more foreigners than they do americans. >> Why should Ford improve its product when the taxpayer is just going to prop them up anyway? << once again you totally miss the point. the proper question is: why should american taxpayers be propping up the japanese car companies! you are complaining about taxpayer subsidies of american car companies when the truth is you should be complaining about US taxpayers subsidizing the japanese car industry! >> Inflexible labor that expects the market to reward them for the same skills a dollar an hour Mexican can perform << ok, let it be known that d long believes american autoworkers should be paid $1.50 an hour just like mexicans. not only do you sound ignorant, you sound selfish and unpatriotic. you place your slavish devotion to the free market above the needs of your compatriots. the economy should serve the needs of the country, rather than the people of america serving the economy. you greedy free-market republicans are too immature to understand this and you wonder why conservative blue-dog democrats who supported reagan are heading back to the democratic party in droves. now you know why the republicans are compromising their social agenda to try to regain the lost votes. >> Paying someone $30 and hour to do what someone else will do for $1 a DAY is unproductive and wasteful use of capital And its damn stupid too << i'm not surprised you believe this. you are more interested in efficiency than your country. i'll tell you what. i've got an idea, since you love efficiency so much. instead of sending our children to junior high and high school, why don't we put them in the workforce? why don't we let kids go to work at 12 years old? think of all that money we waste building schools and paying teachers to educate them when they could be in the workforce providing goods and service to the economy. one of these days you will grow up and learn that an economy must serve the country--across all class lines--rather than americans must serve the free market. >> Why do you think it is evil for companies to maximize what you consider undeserved profit, but the same maximization of undeserved profit by another sector of Americans, American unionized labor, is just fine? << i've got a real novel concept for you here! pay close attention now! what was the key phrase you used in your question? "American unionized labor"? American? golly, a union for American workers? what could be so evil about American workers? now when you talk about companies maximizing profits, how are they going about that? by employing American workers? nupe! they maximize profits by employing Mexican workers, among others. capiche?