How much do you think socialism will cost?

[chuck22b]

Originally Posted by goodbyehollywood

I didn't say anybody was going to buy them; I simply stated that GM is making cars there.

Of course America has a demand problem. American companies do not make products people want. And American products cost too much in a global marketplace, because American workers demand high wages and endless concessions at ALL levels of the production chain. Take away the unions, outrageous executive compensation and non-performance bonuses and American companies can be competitive. Yes, quality of life will slip, but guess what-- we're already on that path. The days of fat pensions and good health insurance (and dental, vision and disability) have gone the way of flying first class and having a big expense account and a nice company car. They won't be returning. People will be lucky to get social security, until that, too, disappears.

Corporate America has a top and a bottom. The disgruntled are quick to point fingers at the top, when the problem lies equally at the bottom. Greedy at the top, entitled at the bottom and the middle is being whittled away. That is the new America.

I agree,
America has lost a lot of competitiveness. But then again, most developed nations costs even more than the US with even higher taxes. So, in a sense, we're one of the most competitive among our peers.

In the most part we're competitive against most of the other developed nations and have a fair balance of trade with them. It's the unequal balance of trade we have with the developing nations.

NO Matter what, the US can't compete in terms of wages against the developing nations even without the unions. It's not a matter of labor capital, it's simply because we're a developed nation and have all the laws, standards, and existing Costs of living associated with being a developed nation.

So yes, in terms of racing towards the bottom, the US in the most part can't compete and so can't the other developed nations. But, really? Should we be racing for the bottom? Or should we be having them race for the top? and raise their standard of living, intelluctual property laws, currency manipulations, etc. Why is it that we have to follow our policy rules through the WTO, while they can still do pretty much whatever they want?

Basically, no matter what we do, we can fall down to the 80s economy and still have a higher COL than most developing nations, we aren't going to be able to compete on costs because we're simply further along in the economic cycle. So, in turn, we need to make sure they hold up their side of the bargain, and raise their standards up to ours. Isn't that the point of progress? Otherwise, we can regress down towards a 3rd world country and beat them by being even cheaper. That'd be plainly dumb.

We just don't do business with folks that don't abide by the rules of the trade.

-chuck22b

[GregW]

My tariff proposals would wipe out the second and third world advantage. The tariffs would go away as their labor and environmental standards approached ours. Then they could compete on a "flat world" basis. Until then, we lose.

[chuck22b]

Originally Posted by GregW

My tariff proposals would wipe out the second and third world advantage. The tariffs would go away as their labor and environmental standards approached ours. Then they could compete on a "flat world" basis. Until then, we lose.

That's too simple GregW and would require companies to actually innovate rather than find the cheapest land, lax environmental and human rights laws, corporate cronyism and bribery. It's easier to exploit other Countries at the cost of both sides to pad the pockets of the few.

That's the American Way and the other Developed nations have been following suit. Because really? If you don't exploit the system, then your going to fall behind.

But, I think things should change as the People in the Developed and developing nations realize that all of our prosperity was based on lies. The under paid factory workers in China that are unemployed because of little to no more demand, the unemployed logistics, retail, construction, white collar, whatever worker in the developed nations because credit has dried up. There is a paradigm shift going on and I hope things can change. But, I hope workers of the world don't get fooled into thinking that the government is actually working for them.

-chuck22b

[goodbyehollywood]

But it's not just the competitive lack; it's the fact that Americans don't want American products. We used to, but now we turn to Samsung or Sony for electronics, LG for appliances, IKEA for furniture. Honda and Toyota trump GM, and if you want economy, there's Hyundai and Kia. If you're eco-friendly, there's Prius. GM founded the niche for green cars and Toyota quickly-- and easily-- took it away. Ditto Toshiba for laptops-- a niche IBM once owned. GM and RCA are has-beens and other iconic American brands, like Kenmore, are quickly following. We can't legislate what people buy.

When your competitors are producing the products people want at a better price, it's a very long road back. Not impossible, but we've lost our way... and our edge. Young, hungry people innovate; fat, lazy ones don't. As a country, we have gotten bloated and complacent and we are paying the price. And it's a high one.

There is a paradigm shift going on, and if we're going to succeed, we're going to have to change... and change quickly. And our quality of life is going to have to adjust, because we have gotten ahead of the curve.

[chuck22b]

Originally Posted by goodbyehollywood

But it's not just the competitive lack; it's the fact that Americans don't want American products. We used to, but now we turn to Samsung or Sony for electronics, LG for appliances, IKEA for furniture. Honda and Toyota trump GM, and if you want economy, there's Hyundai and Kia. If you're eco-friendly, there's Prius. GM founded the niche for green cars and Toyota quickly-- and easily-- took it away. Ditto Toshiba for laptops-- a niche IBM once owned. GM and RCA are has-beens and other iconic American brands, like Kenmore, are quickly following. We can't legislate what people buy.

When your competitors are producing the products people want at a better price, it's a very long road back. Not impossible, but we've lost our way... and our edge. Young, hungry people innovate; fat, lazy ones don't. As a country, we have gotten bloated and complacent and we are paying the price. And it's a high one.

There is a paradigm shift going on, and if we're going to succeed, we're going to have to change... and change quickly. And our quality of life is going to have to adjust, because we have gotten ahead of the curve.

yup, and that's why the defaults, foreclosures, etc. are going to significantly reduce costs for Americans and ultimately companies as cost of living subsides and wages can drop.

I agree, that there is some reduction in innovativeness in the States, but I would have to say that a lot of it is as a result of decades of "free" trade practices first by the Japanese, and now by the Chinese and the other BRIC nations. First they come with cheap products that floods out the market and extends credit as dollars come back through trade, and then when the markets crash, they buy out the innovative companies and technologies. RCA isn't American anymore, and neither is Zenith. I can name a plethora of other companies that have been bought out, assimulated, and then phased out.

American corporations haven't just recently started their practice of outsourcing manufacturing, labor, and everything else. It has been on going since at least the 70s when we started our negative trade imbalance trend. In turn, the nation that we outsource to buys our treasuries and extends US credit fueling a credit bubble. There is a reason Why Japan holds the second most amount of US Treasuries and why we had a credit bubble in the late 80s.

The thing is, US corporate strategy of finding the cheapest place instead of innovating is going to break US. There is a reason why Japan was able to come on top in Automobiles. There is a reason why Korea is able to come on top of Electronics. They were all able to capitalize on US Corporate greed by offering free bees and "development" zones, harness US knowledge and Expertise (Deming for Japan, and US Military development in Japan - Chinese drawing US Corporate interests through free tax zones and stomping labor costs, India taking US Technology interests), and then make it better and cheaper because they are "developing" nations and ultimately have lower costs.

Basically, the US Corporations actually "Invested" more in other countries rather than investing in the States because of Costs. But, ended up losing out because the student became the master.

So, the story goes... US Corporations are the greatest philantropists because they wanted cheap. But as a result, loses out in the long haul as technology, investments, and innovations occur overseas because they didn't invest in the US. That is why eventually the Giley, Tanta, InfoSys, BYD batteries, etc. are going to kick our companies butts as each investment dollar there actually does more.

Everybody is looking out for the developing nations including themselves. US Corporate Short sightedness is going to be the end of US. German companies innovated within and built better products to compete... US companies look for cheap... and innovate abroad and wonder why we're broke and foreigners end up with better products.

Last I heard IBM has been laying off 10% of their US employees per annum while bumping up their foreign employees. Closing down shops here, while opening up new innovation centers out there. Similar actions are occuring throughout other US industries. So, who's going to win in innovation? Go figure it doesn't take a genius to understand that it takes "investment" money to make money and to innovate.

-chuck22b

[Randomdude]

Originally Posted by GregW

My tariff proposals would wipe out the second and third world advantage. The tariffs would go away as their labor and environmental standards approached ours. Then they could compete on a "flat world" basis. Until then, we lose.

Im all for tariffs. Ive been tooting this horn since that piece of toilet paper NAFTA was signed.

[GregW]

All of our current trade agreements are designed to increase the profit of American investors at the expense of American workers. The recent crash stole the profits from the smaller investors as well. We need major structural reforms in our economy and in our trade agreements.

[Randomdude]

Originally Posted by GregW

All of our current trade agreements are designed to increase the profit of American investors at the expense of American workers. The recent crash stole the profits from the smaller investors as well. We need major structural reforms in our economy and in our trade agreements.

Its not only American workers, NAFTA has also managed to put 10's of thousands of Mexican workers out to pasture as well. NAFTA is almost exclusively the reason why there is such an influx of illegal Mexican immigrants to the US.

[GregW]

NAFTA effectivly destroyed the small mexican farms under a flood of American grain. ADM didn't spend all that lobbying money for nothing.

The bankers got a twofer - cheap Mexican labor and a dumping groung for all the US government subsidized grain production.