U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Economics
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 10-15-2007, 11:04 PM
 
Location: Portland, OR
414 posts, read 2,386,430 times
Reputation: 295

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by forest beekeeper View Post
Yes.

I do not know so much about the depression part, but as career military and having lived overseas, I do have a bit of a back ground into some of the things behind this war.

The Islamic hatred of the US is all about our support of globalization.

We [not you, and not me, rather the American version of free-market capitalism and multi-national corporations] have put McDonalds into every nation. Even though it offends people in so many cultures. Even though it is locals who have invested, and locals who work there, and locals who eat there. It still offends them.

'Free-market Capitalism and Multi-national Corporations' have put TV stations into every nation and with it Babe-Watch and Love-boat.

The junk that sells on our TV, offends many Americans, and ours is a liberal society. Put TV sets into an Amish home with filth, vulgarity and porn on every channel, and see what they think of it.
Thank you. Very interesting post. Puts some things into perspective. I was never totally sure why the Middle East hated us, they seem to benefit from the oil trade and I thought that the jihad was mostly a radical attack on religion and an aggressive approach to force the world to all convert to Islam. I'm sure the Iraqis must be angry with thoughts of a democratic government that would be forced to support free trade etc, not being given much choice.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-15-2007, 11:09 PM
 
Location: Thankfully in New England...
86 posts, read 126,667 times
Reputation: 24
The global economy is imperative for your economy's health. About 1 in 5 manufacturing jobs currently would be lost if we stopped trading with other countries.


The global economy is very important, and we need to learn how to adapt. Free trade can be beneficial for everybody if we play our cards right.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-16-2007, 04:54 AM
 
Location: Forests of Maine
29,723 posts, read 47,495,927 times
Reputation: 17577
Quote:
Originally Posted by deportallofthem View Post
The global economy is imperative for your economy's health. About 1 in 5 manufacturing jobs currently would be lost if we stopped trading with other countries.

And by stopping our import of foods and products, our jobs would increase by triple-fold.

So on one hand we might lose 20% of our jobs, and we would create 300% more jobs.

We did wonderfully before we opened our borders to over-seas trade.

Quote:
.. The global economy is very important, and we need to learn how to adapt. Free trade can be beneficial for everybody if we play our cards right.
I do not foresee any circumstance where such could happen.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-16-2007, 08:07 AM
 
5,092 posts, read 9,603,162 times
Reputation: 3941
Quote:
Originally Posted by deportallofthem View Post
The global economy is imperative for your economy's health. About 1 in 5 manufacturing jobs currently would be lost if we stopped trading with other countries.


The global economy is very important, and we need to learn how to adapt. Free trade can be beneficial for everybody if we play our cards right.

Sorry, but gotta call bs on all on this.

Sort of sounds like a Federal Reserve "educational" document.

If we really really wanted to keep the free(fall) trade going, we could at least use a tariff on the imbalance. Not even an issue of "protection," just sound financial behavior. (btw, since when did "protection" of America and Americans become a bad thing?).

Tax up to 100% of the excess coming in compared to what is being sold outwards. That would force a balance fairly quickly, and stop US from bleeding cash and jobs, and is fully within the Constitution.

However, that would restrict the profits being made on the exchange which is pretty much limited to international corporations. We will probably have to go broke first. Which will probably not too long at this rate.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-16-2007, 08:18 AM
 
5,092 posts, read 9,603,162 times
Reputation: 3941
Quote:
Originally Posted by forest beekeeper View Post
Yes.

I do not know so much about the depression part, but as career military and having lived overseas, I do have a bit of a back ground into some of the things behind this war.

The Islamic hatred of the US is all about our support of globalization.

We [not you, and not me, rather the American version of free-market capitalism and multi-national corporations] have put McDonalds into every nation. Even though it offends people in so many cultures. Even though it is locals who have invested, and locals who work there, and locals who eat there. It still offends them.

'Free-market Capitalism and Multi-national Corporations' have put TV stations into every nation and with it Babe-Watch and Love-boat.

The junk that sells on our TV, offends many Americans, and ours is a liberal society. Put TV sets into an Amish home with filth, vulgarity and porn on every channel, and see what they think of it.


That is pretty close, but to declare an ALL it misses a couple of points. Osama was nice enough to give US a list back in the early '90s before any of this started.

1. Stop harming Muslim kids -- blockade of Iraq, then -- but we are doing worse, now.
2. Get US troops out of Saudi (actually done, now)
3. Stop shipping weapons and money to Israel to be used against Muslims.
and
4. Stop trying to force "Western Culture" (as described above) into the Muslim lands.

That was all they were / are fighting for. So far we are keeping up with doing most of the list, and digging our own hole deeper. Notice there is not anything in there about "They hate us for our freedom," nor any sort of "Islamofascist" world-take-over nonsense.

They just wanted US to stop screwing around in their home. So how is this going to turn out?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-16-2007, 10:56 AM
 
2,356 posts, read 2,460,557 times
Reputation: 864
Quote:
Originally Posted by debbee View Post
Thanks,

I'll look into it. I imagine I can read online editions?
I agree with him. The Economist magazine, though not cheap, is by far the best publication I've ever read. Aside from excellent analysis, it has good graphs/stats and mildly humorous writing. You can learn a tremendous amount by reading one issue from cover to cover.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-16-2007, 11:14 AM
 
2,356 posts, read 2,460,557 times
Reputation: 864
Quote:
Originally Posted by Philip T View Post
If we really really wanted to keep the free(fall) trade going, we could at least use a tariff on the imbalance. Not even an issue of "protection," just sound financial behavior. (btw, since when did "protection" of America and Americans become a bad thing?).

Tax up to 100% of the excess coming in compared to what is being sold outwards. That would force a balance fairly quickly, and stop US from bleeding cash and jobs, and is fully within the Constitution.

However, that would restrict the profits being made on the exchange which is pretty much limited to international corporations. We will probably have to go broke first. Which will probably not too long at this rate.
Protection is the opposite of competition. When we say "protect Americans," we are really saying "Protect American companies from foreign competition."

If we protect automobiles, for example, we are reducing the amount of competition for automobiles in the American marketplace. Competition leads to lower prices for higher-quality goods.

So are you suggesting that we should want to pay higher prices for lower quality goods, in order to save the jobs of a select few industries? That doesn't make any sense to me. Free trade does endanger some American jobs. But despite the doom-and-gloom myths you hear, America is currently creating more jobs than it is losing, as we have been for a while.

Last edited by anonymous; 10-16-2007 at 11:22 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-16-2007, 11:29 AM
 
2,356 posts, read 2,460,557 times
Reputation: 864
Quote:
Originally Posted by forest beekeeper View Post
We [not you, and not me, rather the American version of free-market capitalism and multi-national corporations] have put McDonalds into every nation.
Interesting perspective. Are you suggesting that we [American capitalism] forced other countries to allow McDonalds? It seems to me like they want McDonalds and Coca-Cola.

Quote:
Even though it offends people in so many cultures. Even though it is locals who have invested, and locals who work there, and locals who eat there. It still offends them.
If "they" are so overwhelmingly against globalization/McDonalds/etc., then why aren't they looking toward their leaders to prohibit those things? Doesn't that seem like the first step, rather than suicide bombing, etc?

Quote:
'Free-market Capitalism and Multi-national Corporations' have put TV stations into every nation and with it Babe-Watch and Love-boat.

The junk that sells on our TV, offends many Americans, and ours is a liberal society. Put TV sets into an Amish home with filth, vulgarity and porn on every channel, and see what they think of it.
I just don't understand this perspective - not yours, specifically, but a lot of what's been discussed in this thread. If there's an Amish (or Iranian) television displaying porn right now, you can bet the Amish (or Iranian) guy went out and bought that TV, and paid for that cable service. Nothing was forced on him.

Americans are filling the needs and desires that other countries have. This "disgust" they have with western consumer goods/services is simply a reflection of their own peoples' desires staring back at them in the mirror.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-16-2007, 01:36 PM
 
5,092 posts, read 9,603,162 times
Reputation: 3941
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymous View Post
I

I just don't understand this perspective - not yours, specifically, but a lot of what's been discussed in this thread. If there's an Amish (or Iranian) television displaying porn right now, you can bet the Amish (or Iranian) guy went out and bought that TV, and paid for that cable service. Nothing was forced on him.

Americans are filling the needs and desires that other countries have. This "disgust" they have with western consumer goods/services is simply a reflection of their own peoples' desires staring back at them in the mirror.
OK. I will take that you sincerely do not understand this.

Here is an example. I live in a "hoody" part of town -- Dallas, TX to be specific. In our area we have hookers and drug dealers. No one really likes them about, but they are here.

And it is not because the locals want them here, or even the people in the neighborhood make use of their services. But the case can be made that anyone who does use those "services" is doing so only because of their own desires. So why should that trade be restricted?

In our case, we would like them out because of the trash it brings in. And I am not talking about garbage left behind, but it generates that as well. I am talking trash people with trash behaviors. Now in the case of Muslim countries -- they do not want Western trash in their lands. Who blames them?

Contrasting that to the Amish guy, at least the TV is not illegal under US law, but it is improper under their church law. Part of the rules for living in that community. The Muslims have their laws for living in their community. Why do you think a claim of "free markets" should overwrite that law, anymore than we should have to endure hookers and drug dealers in our community?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-16-2007, 01:56 PM
 
5,092 posts, read 9,603,162 times
Reputation: 3941
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymous View Post
Protection is the opposite of competition. When we say "protect Americans," we are really saying "Protect American companies from foreign competition."

If we protect automobiles, for example, we are reducing the amount of competition for automobiles in the American marketplace. Competition leads to lower prices for higher-quality goods.

So are you suggesting that we should want to pay higher prices for lower quality goods, in order to save the jobs of a select few industries? That doesn't make any sense to me. Free trade does endanger some American jobs. But despite the doom-and-gloom myths you hear, America is currently creating more jobs than it is losing, as we have been for a while.
You are making up a whole strawman dialog with yourself in that discussion -- saying that I am saying what you wish I were saying so you make up your own redundant argument against it?

Although you may not follow the method, it is a common lie to lie to the masses -- explanation here:

Straw man - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

But going down your list . . . .

"Protect American companies from foreign competition."

Not at all. It is harder and harder to find what can even be called American Companies. For your auto example -- I have driven Ford trucks for nearly 30 years. Now Ford is looking at fully exporting their manufacture. Meanwhile Toyota is building more and more vehicles, here. Next truck I get is likely to be a Toyota. Ford says F - America, I say F- Ford.

Save jobs in select industries?

No, nothing of the sort. I am talking about overall balanced trade. I understand that you may not follow the difference. It is a money thing -- not a specific task or item thing. It is measured in money flows called the Current Account Balance. All countries have a measure of this. When it runs long-term negative, a country becomes poor, Long-term positiive leads to wealth.

Explanation here:

Current account - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

When a country becomes a large debtor, it eventually goes broke. Look where the US is on the list:

List of countries by current account balance - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

(last of 163) How long do you think this will continue?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Economics
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top