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.

Technology Stocks : Applied Materials No-Politics Thread (AMAT) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Sam Citron who wrote (10295)	6/9/2004 11:48:25 AM
From: Bookdon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 25522

It really isn't so far off thread. AMAT is a good example of getting part of a bigger pie. When AMAT started selling semi-equipment, most of its customers were US-based fabs. Over time, that has changed dramatically. Now most of its customers are in Asia, but it still gains jobs and profits in the US to support that business. There will come a time (it is beginning to happen now) when AMAT will move manufacturing and service (clearly, a lot of service activities are already moved) overseas. That will better serve the needs of the stockholders (isn't that what this thread is all about) and its customers. What will still be in the US? I don't know, but whatever it is that we do best (therefor also the cheapest). Research? Money management? Marketing?

To: Sam Citron who wrote (10295)	6/9/2004 11:48:30 AM
From: Big Bucks	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 25522

Sam, international trade is very complex with lots of issues to consider. I don't think absolute isolationism is a valid way to protect the interests of the US.... I do, however, believe that limiting or balancing the trade inequities is a viable solution. The US cannot compete with manufacturing countries that produce goods with a cost basis of 60% cheaper than we can produce them. We can, however, limit the amount of imports or apply tariffs to make the imported products as expensive as our manufacturing costs and then consumers will decide whether US or foreign products represent the better purchase value. US companies have moved their manufacturing to cheap labor and cheap commodity supply countries at the expense of US manufacturing prowess and US jobs. This strategic repositioning of the manufacturing base, funded with US dollars, has also removed part of the corporate tax base which is lost as a US tax revenue stream. Dollars,jobs, and corporate/worker tax revenues are going out of the country for cheaper products and there is currently no way to stop the outflow except to create a disincentive, which requires tariffs or import limits. Of course the WTO would place sanctions on US products in retaliation, thereby hurting our exports..... I guess I view it like the WTO and the US have each other by the balls and each time one or the other lifts their hand a bit the other one gets up on its' toes and lifts its' hand....the effect being that, viewed from a distance we see two individuals holding each other by the crotch and both dancing on tip toes, each not wanting to apply to much pressure but neither one willing to let go. I guess we could call it "Scrotum Economics" or a "Testicular Standoff".

To: Sam Citron who wrote (10295)	6/9/2004 12:46:11 PM
From: Cary Salsberg	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 25522

RE: "Could you cite some empirical evidence of a country where such policies have helped?" I think I should be able to, but, usually, it is limited to specific industries and to countries that are not as integral to the world economy as the US. RE: "...how do you prevent isolationism and protectionism from hurting our economy, and everyone in it..." If you admit that globalization is hurting our economy, and not everyone, but a significant and growing percentage of people in it, then the problem is not "prevention" but choosing the lesser of two evils. The free enterprise nature of our economy results in a fragmented response to globalization with benefit to some and detriment to others and no system to measure the balance and forecast the future effects. I don't think specific measures that protect and isolate are as important as a wholistic view of the problematic impact of globalization and a plan to deal with current and worsening future effects on a national level with a unified approach. I will simplify. Does globalization increase the US economic pie? If the answer is yes, then the problem is redistribution of the pie because it is obvious that benefits are not close to being uniform. Distribution must help those hurt by globalization while shrinking the US pie as little as possible. If the answer is no, then alternatives that treat the whole economy better and distibute benefits more equitably must be considered without considering the well being of the rest of the world.