First let's all agree there is a problem with American manufacturing vs the global market with lower quality and cheaper wages. It's impossible for many domestic manufactures to offer the same price as foreign competitors but we have to be honest why if we really want to address the problem. American labor laws, regulations, and EPA requirements factor heavily into domestic manufacturing cost. The other factor is taxes, which has been partially addressed with the new tax law, but that's only one of the four real cost driver's.
Instead of addressing the other three cost driving factors domestically we've elected to take the short cut and imposse selective Tarrifs. Which in turn is simply selective taxation. Instead of addressing our cost driver's we are now arbitrarily increase the cost of other selective goods. This is an end game loss, it undercuts the free markets ability to control supply and demand and sets a precident that the state should decide when a playing field is to unfair and impose selective taxation.
You want American manufacturing to compete you say but I'll bet most people would oppose what it would really take to compete. It would take eliminating minimum wage, allowing children as young as 14 to work and rolling back regulations on interstate commerce.
I'd support all three of those as opposed to Tarrifs. Where does it stop now? Why solar and washer machines? This is crony capitalism and any consrvative or libertarian should voice opposition to it.
Why don't we just blockade all the world's major shipping routes? We have, what, 9 aircraft carrier groups? Which, by the way, is more than the rest of the world combined.
Let's get some bang out of that buck!
(I'm kidding, people)
(01-24-2018, 05:14 PM)MalabarJag Wrote: [ -> ] Whether or not the tax cut will bring companies back to the US, at least our tax rate will no longer be driving them away in the future.
China-India-Mexico = No
Other Countries = Perhaps
As noted above, we can't compete with the extremely low hourly wages currently being paid for the high output jobs being done in China, India, and Mexico.
(01-24-2018, 09:46 AM)TrivialPursuit Wrote: [ -> ]Why don't we just blockade all the world's major shipping routes? We have, what, 9 aircraft carrier groups? Which, by the way, is more than the rest of the world combined.
Let's get some bang out of that buck!
(I'm kidding, people)
I know you're kidding, but we don't need to blockade shipping routes because we're the ones who keep them open. If we wanted worldwide shipping to descend into chaos, it would be accomplished by simply putting our naval forces into stand down.
(01-24-2018, 05:33 PM)HURRICANE!!! Wrote: [ -> ] (01-24-2018, 05:14 PM)MalabarJag Wrote: [ -> ] Whether or not the tax cut will bring companies back to the US, at least our tax rate will no longer be driving them away in the future.
China-India-Mexico = No
Other Countries = Perhaps
As noted above, we can't compete with the extremely low hourly wages currently being paid for the high output jobs being done in China, India, and Mexico.
Not to mention the absolute dearth of environmental and safety regulations. We play by the rules, they don't.
So cheap prices at any cost then? No thanks. We are the market, time to control it again.
(01-24-2018, 10:26 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]So cheap prices at any cost then? No thanks. We are the market, time to control it again.
No not at any cost but not selectively leveling the playing field.
I'll use an industry I'm very familure with for an example. I sell Tires along with other auto services for a living. I work for an American Tire company that makes roughly 75% of their tires domestically. They sell tires advertised at a higher quality but sometimes 2-3x the cost of foreign cheaper tires offered. It's a multi-billion dollar company they have no problem justifying price for product in direct competition every day, sure we lose some of the lower end market but there's ALWAYS going to be the shopper that just wants the cheapest product possible that's fine, they don't buy my Tires or our services.
using the state to level the playing field isn't controlling the market, it's manipulating through taxes. Again the problem is real, addressing through selective taxation is the wrong way to do it.
(01-24-2018, 05:33 PM)HURRICANE!!! Wrote: [ -> ] (01-24-2018, 05:14 PM)MalabarJag Wrote: [ -> ] Whether or not the tax cut will bring companies back to the US, at least our tax rate will no longer be driving them away in the future.
China-India-Mexico = No
Other Countries = Perhaps
As noted above, we can't compete with the extremely low hourly wages currently being paid for the high output jobs being done in China, India, and Mexico.
I don't think we should try to compete with those countries. We need to adapt to reality and the current situation. Free trade is extremely beneficial to society as a whole. I don't want to pay more for things just to support a few dinosaur jobs in Ohio and Michigan. I am happy if we can import things that are much cheaper than if they were produced here. That's benefits everyone. And if everyone saves money on purchases, that money can go toward other businesses that might be based in the United States. That's good for jobs here in the US.
(01-25-2018, 06:53 AM)EricC85 Wrote: [ -> ] (01-24-2018, 10:26 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]So cheap prices at any cost then? No thanks. We are the market, time to control it again.
No not at any cost but not selectively leveling the playing field.
I'll use an industry I'm very familure with for an example. I sell Tires along with other auto services for a living. I work for an American Tire company that makes roughly 75% of their tires domestically. They sell tires advertised at a higher quality but sometimes 2-3x the cost of foreign cheaper tires offered. It's a multi-billion dollar company they have no problem justifying price for product in direct competition every day, sure we lose some of the lower end market but there's ALWAYS going to be the shopper that just wants the cheapest product possible that's fine, they don't buy my Tires or our services.
using the state to level the playing field isn't controlling the market, it's manipulating through taxes. Again the problem is real, addressing through selective taxation is the wrong way to do it.
No, barriers to entry permit us to enforce our values (human dignity, fair wages and labor practices, quality products) on those who would participate in our markets. Those cheap prices come at the expense of human rights, permitting them access to the world's most powerful and robust market only exacerbates that problem.
(01-25-2018, 09:19 AM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ] (01-25-2018, 06:53 AM)EricC85 Wrote: [ -> ]No not at any cost but not selectively leveling the playing field.
I'll use an industry I'm very familure with for an example. I sell Tires along with other auto services for a living. I work for an American Tire company that makes roughly 75% of their tires domestically. They sell tires advertised at a higher quality but sometimes 2-3x the cost of foreign cheaper tires offered. It's a multi-billion dollar company they have no problem justifying price for product in direct competition every day, sure we lose some of the lower end market but there's ALWAYS going to be the shopper that just wants the cheapest product possible that's fine, they don't buy my Tires or our services.
using the state to level the playing field isn't controlling the market, it's manipulating through taxes. Again the problem is real, addressing through selective taxation is the wrong way to do it.
No, barriers to entry permit us to enforce our values (human dignity, fair wages and labor practices, quality products) on those who would participate in our markets. Those cheap prices come at the expense of human rights, permitting them access to the world's most powerful and robust market only exacerbates that problem.
It's funny that a lot of liberals just don't give a crap about other countries human rights violations.. I thought they were the caring ones? I heard one crazy woman actually say she wanted to live in a communist utopia. Are you kidding me? This is the new generation of idiots that our public school system has created.
People keep saying we can't compete with places like Asia and Mexico in terms of manufacturing for obvious reasons. But hasn't anyone considered the advancement in robotics? You automate 80% of the work, have 10% of the employees working the plant. The startup cost is significantly larger but operating costs gotta be similar at that point.
(01-25-2018, 10:20 AM)Inziladun Wrote: [ -> ]People keep saying we can't compete with places like Asia and Mexico in terms of manufacturing for obvious reasons. But hasn't anyone considered the advancement in robotics? You automate 80% of the work, have 10% of the employees working the plant. The startup cost is significantly larger but operating costs gotta be similar at that point.
Also, at that point your startup costs would be invested in CapEx, not directly into an operating expense.
(01-25-2018, 09:19 AM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ] (01-25-2018, 06:53 AM)EricC85 Wrote: [ -> ]No not at any cost but not selectively leveling the playing field.
I'll use an industry I'm very familure with for an example. I sell Tires along with other auto services for a living. I work for an American Tire company that makes roughly 75% of their tires domestically. They sell tires advertised at a higher quality but sometimes 2-3x the cost of foreign cheaper tires offered. It's a multi-billion dollar company they have no problem justifying price for product in direct competition every day, sure we lose some of the lower end market but there's ALWAYS going to be the shopper that just wants the cheapest product possible that's fine, they don't buy my Tires or our services.
using the state to level the playing field isn't controlling the market, it's manipulating through taxes. Again the problem is real, addressing through selective taxation is the wrong way to do it.
No, barriers to entry permit us to enforce our values (human dignity, fair wages and labor practices, quality products) on those who would participate in our markets. Those cheap prices come at the expense of human rights, permitting them access to the world's most powerful and robust market only exacerbates that problem.
Apparently this is more than a 2-sided question. I have a different point of view from both of you.
I don't think imported tires are of lower quality than American made tires. But that's beside the point.
Secondly, if a person wants to buy imported tires, they should have that right. And I don't think restricting imported tires would have any effect whatsoever on the human rights of the overseas countries where those imported tires were made.
But let's suppose that we did restrict cheaper imported tires. Now everyone who needs new tires has to buy more expensive American made tires. Because of this, people drive longer on old tires instead of getting new ones. Fewer tires get sold and installed. Raise the price, reduce the demand. So fewer tires sold, fewer jobs at tire stores and fewer jobs at tire installers.
The problem is, things that benefit society as a whole are much harder to see than things that benefit a particular special interest. People say, for example, we need to restrict the inflow of cheap steel from overseas to save American steel jobs. It's easier for people to see that we saved some jobs at a steel mill than it is for them to see that the price of everything that uses steel just went up and they're going to have to pay more for a whole lot of things.
People save a whole lot of money on cheap imported goods, and that money that they saved flows into other businesses here in the United States. Suppose a person who is living from paycheck to paycheck has to pay more for clothes, and shoes, and a TV set. And then they need to fix their roof. Do they postpone fixing their roof? And with the price of shoes going up, do they buy fewer shoes? And what effect does that have on jobs at shoe stores?
Bottom line: I don't think we can control the flow of cheaper goods, and I don't think we should try to. We need to either find a way to compete, or find some other business. I am for free markets and free trade.
(01-25-2018, 09:19 AM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ] (01-25-2018, 06:53 AM)EricC85 Wrote: [ -> ]No not at any cost but not selectively leveling the playing field.
I'll use an industry I'm very familure with for an example. I sell Tires along with other auto services for a living. I work for an American Tire company that makes roughly 75% of their tires domestically. They sell tires advertised at a higher quality but sometimes 2-3x the cost of foreign cheaper tires offered. It's a multi-billion dollar company they have no problem justifying price for product in direct competition every day, sure we lose some of the lower end market but there's ALWAYS going to be the shopper that just wants the cheapest product possible that's fine, they don't buy my Tires or our services.
using the state to level the playing field isn't controlling the market, it's manipulating through taxes. Again the problem is real, addressing through selective taxation is the wrong way to do it.
No, barriers to entry permit us to enforce our values (human dignity, fair wages and labor practices, quality products) on those who would participate in our markets. Those cheap prices come at the expense of human rights, permitting them access to the world's most powerful and robust market only exacerbates that problem.
By that logic we should impose Tarrifs on anything made outside of Canada or Europe.
(01-25-2018, 08:14 PM)EricC85 Wrote: [ -> ] (01-25-2018, 09:19 AM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]No, barriers to entry permit us to enforce our values (human dignity, fair wages and labor practices, quality products) on those who would participate in our markets. Those cheap prices come at the expense of human rights, permitting them access to the world's most powerful and robust market only exacerbates that problem.
By that logic we should impose Tarrifs on anything made outside of Canada or Europe.
Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan, for instance, are just fine.
(01-25-2018, 10:55 AM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ] (01-25-2018, 09:19 AM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]No, barriers to entry permit us to enforce our values (human dignity, fair wages and labor practices, quality products) on those who would participate in our markets. Those cheap prices come at the expense of human rights, permitting them access to the world's most powerful and robust market only exacerbates that problem.
Apparently this is more than a 2-sided question. I have a different point of view from both of you.
I don't think imported tires are of lower quality than American made tires. But that's beside the point.
Secondly, if a person wants to buy imported tires, they should have that right. And I don't think restricting imported tires would have any effect whatsoever on the human rights of the overseas countries where those imported tires were made.
But let's suppose that we did restrict cheaper imported tires. Now everyone who needs new tires has to buy more expensive American made tires. Because of this, people drive longer on old tires instead of getting new ones. Fewer tires get sold and installed. Raise the price, reduce the demand. So fewer tires sold, fewer jobs at tire stores and fewer jobs at tire installers.
The problem is, things that benefit society as a whole are much harder to see than things that benefit a particular special interest. People say, for example, we need to restrict the inflow of cheap steel from overseas to save American steel jobs. It's easier for people to see that we saved some jobs at a steel mill than it is for them to see that the price of everything that uses steel just went up and they're going to have to pay more for a whole lot of things.
People save a whole lot of money on cheap imported goods, and that money that they saved flows into other businesses here in the United States. Suppose a person who is living from paycheck to paycheck has to pay more for clothes, and shoes, and a TV set. And then they need to fix their roof. Do they postpone fixing their roof? And with the price of shoes going up, do they buy fewer shoes? And what effect does that have on jobs at shoe stores?
Bottom line: I don't think we can control the flow of cheaper goods, and I don't think we should try to. We need to either find a way to compete, or find some other business. I am for free markets and free trade.
And yet our primary economic adversary has neither free markets nor free trade, so why grant them free access to our market at the same time they undercut us with immoral busuness behaviors? Cheap stuff at the cost of our moral fabric.
(01-25-2018, 11:18 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ] (01-25-2018, 08:14 PM)EricC85 Wrote: [ -> ]By that logic we should impose Tarrifs on anything made outside of Canada or Europe.
Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan, for instance, are just fine.
(01-25-2018, 10:55 AM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ]Apparently this is more than a 2-sided question. I have a different point of view from both of you.
I don't think imported tires are of lower quality than American made tires. But that's beside the point.
Secondly, if a person wants to buy imported tires, they should have that right. And I don't think restricting imported tires would have any effect whatsoever on the human rights of the overseas countries where those imported tires were made.
But let's suppose that we did restrict cheaper imported tires. Now everyone who needs new tires has to buy more expensive American made tires. Because of this, people drive longer on old tires instead of getting new ones. Fewer tires get sold and installed. Raise the price, reduce the demand. So fewer tires sold, fewer jobs at tire stores and fewer jobs at tire installers.
The problem is, things that benefit society as a whole are much harder to see than things that benefit a particular special interest. People say, for example, we need to restrict the inflow of cheap steel from overseas to save American steel jobs. It's easier for people to see that we saved some jobs at a steel mill than it is for them to see that the price of everything that uses steel just went up and they're going to have to pay more for a whole lot of things.
People save a whole lot of money on cheap imported goods, and that money that they saved flows into other businesses here in the United States. Suppose a person who is living from paycheck to paycheck has to pay more for clothes, and shoes, and a TV set. And then they need to fix their roof. Do they postpone fixing their roof? And with the price of shoes going up, do they buy fewer shoes? And what effect does that have on jobs at shoe stores?
Bottom line: I don't think we can control the flow of cheaper goods, and I don't think we should try to. We need to either find a way to compete, or find some other business. I am for free markets and free trade.
And yet our primary economic adversary has neither free markets nor free trade, so why grant them free access to our market at the same time they undercut us with immoral busuness behaviors? Cheap stuff at the cost of our moral fabric.
First of all, I don't think restricting imports will have any effect at all on the way other countries operate.
Secondly, the title of this thread, "Addressing a real problem..." I don't think it's a problem.
Thirdly, I don't want to pay more for everything just to pressure the Chinese into acting more like us.
Here's what I'm saying to both you and Eric-
Let's look at the actual effect of importing goods from overseas. Eric's tires, for example. Suppose I have $1,000 to spend, and I can either buy Eric's domestically produced tires for $1,000, or I can buy imported tires for $800. What do I do with the other $200? I might go out to eat, which benefits the restaurant industry, and I might buy a pair of sneakers, which benefits the local shoe store, and I might go to the movies, which benefits the local movie theater. Eric's tire store might he hurt, but the guy who is selling the imported tires would be helped. The net result is, I've actually helped the economy by buying those imported tires.
But let's imagine we do restrict import of tires from countries where we don't like their politics or their lack of regulation. Would you be willing to allow German or British tires into the US? What if those German or British companies source their tires from China?
And what about the substantial proportion of people in the United States who are barely making ends meet? What if they need new tires? Do you force them to buy expensive domestically produced tires just to protect Eric's job?
But back to your idea of using trade policy to change the behavior of other countries. You really want to in effect tax the US citizenry in an effort to change the way the Chinese do things? It won't work. It will only hurt the US economy and further impoverish poor people, both here and abroad.
(01-26-2018, 09:01 AM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ] (01-25-2018, 11:18 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan, for instance, are just fine.
And yet our primary economic adversary has neither free markets nor free trade, so why grant them free access to our market at the same time they undercut us with immoral busuness behaviors? Cheap stuff at the cost of our moral fabric.
First of all, I don't think restricting imports will have any effect at all on the way other countries operate.
Secondly, the title of this thread, "Addressing a real problem..." I don't think it's a problem.
Thirdly, I don't want to pay more for everything just to pressure the Chinese into acting more like us.
Here's what I'm saying to both you and Eric-
Let's look at the actual effect of importing goods from overseas. Eric's tires, for example. Suppose I have $1,000 to spend, and I can either buy Eric's domestically produced tires for $1,000, or I can buy imported tires for $800. What do I do with the other $200? I might go out to eat, which benefits the restaurant industry, and I might buy a pair of sneakers, which benefits the local shoe store, and I might go to the movies, which benefits the local movie theater. Eric's tire store might he hurt, but the guy who is selling the imported tires would be helped. The net result is, I've actually helped the economy by buying those imported tires.
But let's imagine we do restrict import of tires from countries where we don't like their politics or their lack of regulation. Would you be willing to allow German or British tires into the US? What if those German or British companies source their tires from China?
And what about the substantial proportion of people in the United States who are barely making ends meet? What if they need new tires? Do you force them to buy expensive domestically produced tires just to protect Eric's job?
But back to your idea of using trade policy to change the behavior of other countries. You really want to in effect tax the US citizenry in an effort to change the way the Chinese do things? It won't work. It will only hurt the US economy and further impoverish poor people, both here and abroad.
This is a solid argument, +1 to Marty in the 'political' section, don't think I have done that before. Really more of economics on this one but anyway.
(01-25-2018, 11:18 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ] (01-25-2018, 08:14 PM)EricC85 Wrote: [ -> ]By that logic we should impose Tarrifs on anything made outside of Canada or Europe.
Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan, for instance, are just fine.
(01-25-2018, 10:55 AM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ]Apparently this is more than a 2-sided question. I have a different point of view from both of you.
I don't think imported tires are of lower quality than American made tires. But that's beside the point.
Secondly, if a person wants to buy imported tires, they should have that right. And I don't think restricting imported tires would have any effect whatsoever on the human rights of the overseas countries where those imported tires were made.
But let's suppose that we did restrict cheaper imported tires. Now everyone who needs new tires has to buy more expensive American made tires. Because of this, people drive longer on old tires instead of getting new ones. Fewer tires get sold and installed. Raise the price, reduce the demand. So fewer tires sold, fewer jobs at tire stores and fewer jobs at tire installers.
The problem is, things that benefit society as a whole are much harder to see than things that benefit a particular special interest. People say, for example, we need to restrict the inflow of cheap steel from overseas to save American steel jobs. It's easier for people to see that we saved some jobs at a steel mill than it is for them to see that the price of everything that uses steel just went up and they're going to have to pay more for a whole lot of things.
People save a whole lot of money on cheap imported goods, and that money that they saved flows into other businesses here in the United States. Suppose a person who is living from paycheck to paycheck has to pay more for clothes, and shoes, and a TV set. And then they need to fix their roof. Do they postpone fixing their roof? And with the price of shoes going up, do they buy fewer shoes? And what effect does that have on jobs at shoe stores?
Bottom line: I don't think we can control the flow of cheaper goods, and I don't think we should try to. We need to either find a way to compete, or find some other business. I am for free markets and free trade.
And yet our primary economic adversary has neither free markets nor free trade, so why grant them free access to our market at the same time they undercut us with immoral busuness behaviors? Cheap stuff at the cost of our moral fabric.
Because economic dependence goes both ways and is the most powerful tool in preventing outright war between superpowers. China will never attack the West because doing so would fundamentally cripple their entire economy which for a massive part is built on exports to the West. For the same reason the West will never attack China because we are dependent on cheap goods made in China. The economic dependence each side has of the other makes war not only unthinkable but essentially impossible.