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.
What if the Congress had kept the tough tariffs that were in place in the 1950s and 60s and did not pass all those free trade agreements. Costs for things, without all the cheap imports, would be higher, but wages and job opportunities might be better. But maybe not, because it would be harder for us to sell out things overseas.
If we did not move toward free trade and a global economy in the 1980s on, where would America be today?
America is not one entity, and that is the real issue. Had globalization not occurred, the working people would have been better off at the expense of billions of dollars made by the 1%.
The problem is that the government no longer represents the interests of the people, as the people do not keep them in their cushy jobs.
There has been a fundamental change in America, and it has not been for the better. We have experienced a coup in which the interests of the wealthy have been place above the interests of the country at large.
More people, especially more blue collar people, would have steady jobs, but the economy would not be as dynamic. Crap would be much more expensive. With free trade we have lots of cheap crap, ie: a pack of white T-shirts for $7.50. A 3-pack of Fruit of the Loom T-shirts would cost at least $35-40 if it was American-made.
The macro-economic effect would probably be worse, as most economists would tell you. On the micro level though, people would probably feel better about their lives.
More people, especially more blue collar people, would have steady jobs, but the economy would not be as dynamic. Crap would be much more expensive. With free trade we have lots of cheap crap, ie: a pack of white T-shirts for $7.50. A 3-pack of Fruit of the Loom T-shirts would cost at least $35-40 if it was American-made.
The macro-economic effect would probably be worse, as most economists would tell you. On the micro level though, people would probably feel better about their lives.
Not likely.
On the price, I mean.
Material Costs are the same, same either location.
No shipping.
Mostly Automated Manufacturing.
You are talking about some Mighty Phat Mark-up for some Lazy Capitalists.
The shirts would not cost that much, not even close.
Many clothes use to be made in the US, I bought a pair of Lucky jeans in 2005, made in the US, for $35. Yet now those things cost way more, and are not made in the US.
Manufactoring has less to do with consumer cost, more to do with profits. The companies are maximizing their profits, that is all. Theyou are perfectly capable of turning a profit in the US, just not as high of one.
However, each company hopes that another is employing people at good wages, so people have money to buy the products. Apple does not manufacture in the US, but hopes other companies employ people so they have funds to buy Apple products.
China is competing with us by having a cheaper rentier class, aka FIRE sector and by having lower standards in pollution control , lack of consumer protection and intellectual property.
So half the problem could have been solved by sound tax and credit policy and a price is being paid elsewhere. That is to say nothing about now acquiring a defense liability which for some reason people just think is free.
We should have had tarrifs in response to these issues at the very least. That isn't trade.
More people, especially more blue collar people, would have steady jobs, but the economy would not be as dynamic. Crap would be much more expensive. With free trade we have lots of cheap crap, ie: a pack of white T-shirts for $7.50. A 3-pack of Fruit of the Loom T-shirts would cost at least $35-40 if it was American-made.
The macro-economic effect would probably be worse, as most economists would tell you. On the micro level though, people would probably feel better about their lives.
More people, especially more blue collar people, would have steady jobs, but the economy would not be as dynamic. Crap would be much more expensive. With free trade we have lots of cheap crap, ie: a pack of white T-shirts for $7.50. A 3-pack of Fruit of the Loom T-shirts would cost at least $35-40 if it was American-made.
The macro-economic effect would probably be worse, as most economists would tell you. On the micro level though, people would probably feel better about their lives.
Red Guard, refer to my 12:36 PM post of January 16, 2016.
Every user or purchasers of imported goods now benefits from their cheaper prices, BUT those cheaper prices do not fully compensate for our lesser numbers of jobs and consequentially lesser median wage due to USA’s annual trade deficits of goods.
If our government seeks an altruistic trade policy, it should be funded (as the Marshall Plan was funded) by USA’s general budget; the economic burden should not be primarily at the detriment of those dependent upon USA wages.
The concept of Import Certificates is market driven rather than government driven. Every user or purchasers of imported goods now benefits from their cheaper prices, BUT those cheaper prices do not fully compensate for our lesser numbers of jobs and consequentially lesser median wage due to USA’s annual trade deficits of goods.
The financial status of our middle income earners are primarily dependent upon the purchasing powers of employees’ wages, (which is indicated by our nation’s median wage).
USA investors believe that free trade is in the best interests of USA’s aggregate commercial enterprises and what’s to the best financial interests of USA’s business community is certainly to the best economic interests of our nation.
Although the best interests of businesses and our entire population often converge, it is not unusual for them to diverge with regard to some issues. Also we often prefer to believe what we have determined to be to our immediate advantage is also to our own and our nation’s ultimate net advantage; regarding our trade policy and many other issues, what we believe ain’t necessarily so.
The concept of Import Certificates is market rather than government driven.
When USA purchasers want more imported goods or foreign demand for USA produced goods decrease, the global market value of USA’s Import Certificates and prices of foreign goods sold within USA’s domestic markets and the indirect subsidy of USA produced goods sold to foreign markets all increase.
The reverse occurs when USA demands for imported goods decrease or foreign demand for USA produced goods increase. All net costs are borne by USA purchasers and users of foreign goods.
The federal government, (i.e. U.S. customs) determines the approximate value of goods expressed in U.S. dollars at USA entry or shipping ports. The assessed value is reduced by approximate value of explicitly listed scarce or precious materials integral to the goods being assessed. This is the limit of federal discretion and determinations within the trade proposal for Import Certificates. This is a net self funding and market regulated trade proposal.
Red Guard, refer to my 12:36 PM post of January 16, 2016. ... The federal government, (i.e. U.S. customs) determines the approximate value of goods expressed in U.S. dollars at USA entry or shipping ports. The assessed value is reduced by approximate value of explicitly listed scarce or precious materials integral to the goods being assessed. This is the limit of federal discretion and determinations within the trade proposal for Import Certificates. This is a net self funding and market regulated trade proposal.
Respectfully, Supposn
The last paragraph of the Import Certificate global trade proposal posted at 1:01 PM, January 20, 2016, should have been worded as: “The federal government, (i.e. U.S. customs) determines the approximate value of goods expressed in U.S. dollars at USA entry or shipping ports. The assessed value is reduced by approximate value of explicitly listed scarce or precious materials integral to the goods being assessed. This is the limit of federal determinations within the proposed net self-funding and market regulated trade proposal”. There is no federal discretion within this proposed trade policy”.
Despite the heated rhetoric of tribal politics emanating from the left, the top 1% is hardly a fixed group that enjoys consistent income gains. To the contrary, the wealthiest have become the most crash-prone group in our economy. The total income of the top 1%—or those earning more than $343,000 in 2009—fell by more than 30% from 2007, according to the Internal Revenue Service data. By contrast, the average income of the bottom 90% fell less than 3% during the same period.
A Federal Reserve study, meanwhile, found that a third of the people in the top 1% in 2007, as measured by wealth, were no longer in the top 1% in 2009. That means people from lower wealth quintiles moved up.
Wealth and income are now "high beta" -- wide fluctuations so that people in the top change frequently. By analogy, it is like watching a top-loading washing machine, where the clothes visible at the top are constantly changing.
Despite the heated rhetoric of tribal politics emanating from the left, the top 1% is hardly a fixed group that enjoys consistent income gains. To the contrary, the wealthiest have become the most crash-prone group in our economy. The total income of the top 1%—or those earning more than $343,000 in 2009—fell by more than 30% from 2007, according to the Internal Revenue Service data. By contrast, the average income of the bottom 90% fell less than 3% during the same period.
A Federal Reserve study, meanwhile, found that a third of the people in the top 1% in 2007, as measured by wealth, were no longer in the top 1% in 2009. That means people from lower wealth quintiles moved up.
Wealth and income are now "high beta" -- wide fluctuations so that people in the top change frequently. By analogy, it is like watching a top-loading washing machine, where the clothes visible at the top are constantly changing.
Success involves more than just obtaining wealth. It also necessitates maintaining and preserving wealth. Most people have a flawed understanding of what wealth really is though, which places them at a disadvantage.
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.
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.
