Ashley Madison

Real Reason for US War with Iran

arclighter

Guest
Nov 25, 2005
1,527
0
0
WoodPeckr said:
As Jack Davis pointed out, "If everyone in the auto industry from the presidents to floor sweepers were paid our minimum wage of $5.15/hour we still could not compete with the Chinese wages of pennies an hour.

The problem originated in Washington and therefore must be corrected in Washington."


We can never compete with China given the present unbalanced playing field.
Unless this is changed by Washington, US workers face two bad outcomes, die either a quick economic death or a slow one. There are plants paying min. wage that are folding because they can't compete with China.

In the not so distant past there was a quaint notion called something like a 'civic moral/ethical responsibility/compact' by govt to protect their citizens and workers for the greater good of all, as US citizens pursued their goal of 'life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness'. Present policy abandons too many of its citizens while granting more rights to corporations only concerned with padding the 'bottom line' above all. Workers are viewed as liabilities and cheap labor nothing more as CEO of Delphi Herr Miller often points out.

If this is the direction the US is heading, as I said earlier, we are going to be needing plenty of new prisons built because the shrinking middle class is not going to be transformed into modern day peasants or neo-serfs very peacefully.

There are signs of this already with increases in crime and robberies here in the Buffalo/WNY region and knowing Detroit and Michigan, I would not be surprised that the same is occurring there along with Florida and other places in the USA.

Letting the 'market' forces settle things sounds nice in theory but fails in the end because all that does is allow the unrestrained powerful interests run roughshod over anyone in their way. These unbridled amoral forces have to be reigned in and watched like hawks by honest govt. agencies they fear, not own. Recent Deaths in West Virginia coal mines, where mine owners were allowed to operate unsafe mines with over 200 safety violations on record, for which mine owners were fined a paltry $50,000 only bears this out. Dubya 'relaxed' mine rules at the behest of mining interests and people died.

The Ken Lay's, Jack Abramoff's, KBR, the Big Oil and natural gas energy interests..... the Culture of Corruption they represent with their 'market manipulation's at will' need to be stopped. What they are engaging in is nothing more than economic terrorism and as such are far more damaging to the USA than what is happening in the ME.


Dubya, TCB Texas Style !!!
Why didn’t you stop after your opening quote? "If everyone in the auto industry from the presidents to floor sweepers were paid our minimum wage of $5.15/hour we still could not compete with the Chinese wages of pennies an hour.” So to prevent Chinese, or Indian, or Pakistani, or Mexican, or any other third world countries goods from being imported you will need astronomical tariffs. How do you think our middle class will react to $50,000 dollar economy cars, and $100 dollar shirts, and $100,000 dollar plasma televisions? Don’t you give a shit about the poor working class?

Realistically, our only chance for success is to compete in areas that don’t require cheap labor - software, medical, entertainment, retail, services, robotic manufacturing, etc.. This is what is already happening due to natural market forces. Any attempt to “fix” the natural flow of capital only leads to inefficiency and a lowered standard of living. This is why the left makes me vomit. They talk about protecting the poor American worker, and then come up with idiotic government schemes to control the economy that will end up hurting those they profess to protect. But I am an equal opportunity hater, because I hate the Republicans for their irresponsible spending habits.

It is almost impossible to get a straight answer out of you (or any Bush haters for that matter). You have danced around this topic now for two days without providing anything concrete other than your hatred for Bush. Are you suggesting we should implement astronomical tariffs to prevent the importation of cheap goods? A simple yes or no will suffice.
 

langeweile

Banned
Sep 21, 2004
5,085
0
0
In a van down by the river
GM and Ford are a good example of a complete managment failure. GM and FORD deserve to die the death of a Dinosaur.
While the global competition shows hybrid and small diesel engines in Detroit. The US carmakers tout the H2 and Jeep Commander???

Gentlemen what's wrong with this picture?
 

arclighter

Guest
Nov 25, 2005
1,527
0
0
langeweile said:
GM and Ford are a good example of a complete managment failure. GM and FORD deserve to die the death of a Dinosaur.
While the global competition shows hybrid and small diesel engines in Detroit. The US carmakers tout the H2 and Jeep Commander???

Gentlemen what's wrong with this picture?
Even Chrysler refuses to import the Smart Car into America. What a bunch of morons.
 

arclighter

Guest
Nov 25, 2005
1,527
0
0
Carcharias said:
Astronomical tariffs won't do the job, and as arc points out, they'll just end up costing consumers more.

But incremental tariffs may be a part of an overall plan.

For instance, it's impossible for North American auto manufacturers to sell their goods in Japan and China. They have a protected car market; we in North America don't.

But they do depend on North American exporters for raw materials like wood, iron ore, energy, etc.

Maybe a potential solution would be some sort of linkage between access to their markets for the North American auto industry, incremental tariffs on goods imported into NA, and possibly some form of subsidized pricing structure for the natural resources that they use.
That is the idea behind trade agreements. They try to level the playing field. If you want to sell goods in the US unburdened by tariffs you must reciprocate. For example China needs to respect our intellectual property rights and pay for CD’s/DVD’s and software and Japan should be buying our beef. The agreements include penalties for violations.

The libertarians (at least the Rockwellians) believe that such treaties are unnecessary and give up sovereignty They are correct in theory, but as usual their ideas don’t translate well into the real world.
 

arclighter

Guest
Nov 25, 2005
1,527
0
0
langeweile said:
You can but tham in Canada...the question is would you want to? that thing reminds me of a coffin on wheels.
I have seen quite a few in Toronto. They are builit around a steel race cage, to help with safety. The turbo diesels average 70 miles per gallon?
 

WoodPeckr

Protuberant Member
May 29, 2002
46,949
5,746
113
North America
thewoodpecker.net
Just Level the Playing Field!

arclighter said:
Are you suggesting we should implement astronomical tariffs to prevent the importation of cheap goods? A simple yes or no will suffice.
No. We do not have to implement astronomical tariffs.
We do need to level the playing field.

As Carcharias points out, "it's impossible for North American auto manufacturers to sell their goods in Japan and China. They have a protected car market; we in North America don't.

But they do depend on North American exporters for raw materials like wood, iron ore, energy, etc.

Maybe a potential solution would be some sort of linkage between access to their markets for the North American auto industry, incremental tariffs on goods imported into NA, and possibly some form of subsidized pricing structure for the natural resources that they use."


To which arcy notes, "That is the idea behind trade agreements. They try to level the playing field. If you want to sell goods in the US unburdened by tariffs you must reciprocate. For example China needs to respect our intellectual property rights and pay for CD’s/DVD’s and software and Japan should be buying our beef. The agreements include penalties for violations."

There are penalties for violations on the books now.......they just aren't being enforced.

We can not abandon US basic "nut & bolts" manufacturing and arcy suggesting..."our only chance for success is to compete in areas that don’t require cheap labor - software, medical, entertainment, retail, services, robotic manufacturing, etc.." will only put the US in further peril.

An illustration of this is, if there is "real war" in the future it could place the USA in the potential position of having to wait for China to deliver spare parts for our tanks, war material etc., so that the USA could continue on with that future war since the USA had given up on that type of manufacturing! It is imperative US basic manufacturing be protected, it's an important component of overall US national defense.

Don't forget China is still Red China and on paper still committed to overthrowing what the USA stands for. The present unbalanced playing field is tilted so far in China's favor it makes one wonder just how far will corporate interests stoop in their quest for 'profits uber alles'. I mean China seems to be getting it all their way, our technology (IBM moved there) our jobs, our dollars (until they switch to the Euro). In return China finances our fiscal deficits until they feel it's no longer in their interest to and floods the US with cheap goods which degrade US standards of living as Americans continue losing their jobs.

But on the plus side of the ledger there as those who are profiting handsomely from this erosion of US living standards and content with their ...'30 pieces of silver' ... that the Red Chinese send their way.......:mad:
 

arclighter

Guest
Nov 25, 2005
1,527
0
0
WoodPeckr said:
No. We do not have to implement astronomical tariffs.
We do need to level the playing field.

As Carcharias points out, "it's impossible for North American auto manufacturers to sell their goods in Japan and China. They have a protected car market; we in North America don't.

But they do depend on North American exporters for raw materials like wood, iron ore, energy, etc.

Maybe a potential solution would be some sort of linkage between access to their markets for the North American auto industry, incremental tariffs on goods imported into NA, and possibly some form of subsidized pricing structure for the natural resources that they use."


To which arcy notes, "That is the idea behind trade agreements. They try to level the playing field. If you want to sell goods in the US unburdened by tariffs you must reciprocate. For example China needs to respect our intellectual property rights and pay for CD’s/DVD’s and software and Japan should be buying our beef. The agreements include penalties for violations."

There are penalties for violations on the books now.......they just aren't being enforced.

We can not abandon US basic "nut & bolts" manufacturing and arcy suggesting..."our only chance for success is to compete in areas that don’t require cheap labor - software, medical, entertainment, retail, services, robotic manufacturing, etc.." will only put the US in further peril.

An illustration of this is, if there is "real war" in the future it could place the USA in the potential position of having to wait for China to deliver spare parts for our tanks, war material etc., so that the USA could continue on with that future war since the USA had given up on that type of manufacturing! It is imperative US basic manufacturing be protected, it's an important component of overall US national defense.

Don't forget China is still Red China and on paper still committed to overthrowing what the USA stands for. The present unbalanced playing field is tilted so far in China's favor it makes one wonder just how far will corporate interests stoop in their quest for 'profits uber alles'. I mean China seems to be getting it all their way, our technology (IBM moved there) our jobs, our dollars (until they switch to the Euro). In return China finances our fiscal deficits until they feel it's no longer in their interest to and floods the US with cheap goods which degrade US standards of living as Americans continue losing their jobs.

But on the plus side of the ledger there as those who are profiting handsomely from this erosion of US living standards and content with their ...'30 pieces of silver' ... that the Red Chinese send their way.......:mad:
You are surprised that corporations are motivated by profits? Come on Woody what are you smoking? Corporations have always held profits as their primary goal. Do you think the “Robber Barons” were any different?

Other than your naïve notion that corporations should be more altruistic, you answer is no different than my response to Carcharias:

“That is the idea behind trade agreements. They try to level the playing field. If you want to sell goods in the US unburdened by tariffs you must reciprocate. For example China needs to respect our intellectual property rights and pay for CD’s/DVD’s and software and Japan should be buying our beef. The agreements include penalties for violations.

The libertarians (at least the Rockwellians) believe that such treaties are unnecessary and give up sovereignty They are correct in theory, but as usual their ideas don’t translate well into the real world.”

You are never going to “tilt” the playing field far enough to offset .20 cent labor. So like it or not, the manufacturing base will continue to atrophy. The military manufacturers should continue to be subsidized by our government in the interest of self defense.

But don’t sell America short, we are an ingenious people, and our innovations will continue to pay off economically. Basing your economy on cheap labor is a very dangerous thing to do. China is even running into competition from countries such as India. So don’t worry, be happy.
 

WoodPeckr

Protuberant Member
May 29, 2002
46,949
5,746
113
North America
thewoodpecker.net
langeweile said:
GM and Ford are a good example of a complete managment failure. GM and FORD deserve to die the death of a Dinosaur.
Eureka !!! We agree on something!!!

Myopia is their dominant gene, they have no vision.

Toyota is kicking their collective pompous butts for this very reason.

Have driven GM for the last 30 yrs but am thinking of switching, due to quality issuses, I see a drop off again in quality in spite if claims by GM saying they are better than ever. Recently drove a Toyota hybrid Prius and was shocked at how advanced it is! Never even considered looking at an Asian 'rice burner' in the past. They are years ahead of both GM & Ford in this regard.

People want a reliable car that won't self destruct after the short 3 year warranty expires as was the case with a GM Montana I recently had to dump with only 50,000 miles on it....it was literally falling apart!

We want reliable vehicles. While GM & Ford stress cupholders, heated seats & sideview mirrors, DVD players, satellite radio, etc., to mention a few. No wonder Toyota is on the verge of overtaking GM as number 1.
 

WoodPeckr

Protuberant Member
May 29, 2002
46,949
5,746
113
North America
thewoodpecker.net
arclighter said:
You are surprised that corporations are motivated by profits? Come on Woody what are you smoking? Corporations have always held profits as their primary goal. Do you think the “Robber Barons” were any different?
LOL !

So the “Robber Barons” are your role models?!!?

The Robber Barons like the Kenney Lay's were corrupt crooks who were finally put down by the Govt. for the slime they truly are.
Govt. is the only one that can do this....as long as are doing their job and not in bed with them as Jack Abramoff, Tom DeLay and DICK Cheney, et al., have shown to be the present case.
 

arclighter

Guest
Nov 25, 2005
1,527
0
0
WoodPeckr said:
LOL !

So the “Robber Barons” are your role models?!!?

The Robber Barons like the Kenney Lay's were corrupt crooks who were finally put down by the Govt. for the slime they truly are.
Govt. is the only one that can do this....as long as are doing their job and not in bed with them as Jack Abramoff, Tom DeLay and DICK Cheney, et al., have shown to be the present case.
The robber barons aren't my role model. I was trying to point out that companies have acted consistently in terms of profit motivation since the Industrial Revolution (and before then as well). Companies that break the law should be prosecuted, but to expect a company to forego profits to "save" American jobs is just simply utopian.

You might want to check out the book “The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History” by Thomas E. Woods. It has an interesting chapter on those evil robber Barons and a little different perspective on those evil monopolies. The book is written by a Harvard history professor, but it is an easy one day read. I think you would really enjoy it.
 
May 3, 2004
1,686
0
0
arclighter said:
You might want to check out the book “The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History” by Thomas E. Woods. It has an interesting chapter on those evil robber Barons and a little different perspective on those evil monopolies. The book is written by a Harvard history professor, but it is an easy one day read. I think you would really enjoy it.
It would be more palatable to Pecker, if you could link him to a radical, far left-wing, neo-lib, conspiratorial blog site that would take any semblance of fact and reality and pervert and distort it so that it would agree with his intestines.
 

WoodPeckr

Protuberant Member
May 29, 2002
46,949
5,746
113
North America
thewoodpecker.net
Sorta like rogie & his RIFTs!!!!!

rogerstaubach said:
It would be more palatable to Pecker, if you could link him to a radical, far left-wing, neo-lib, conspiratorial blog site that would take any semblance of fact and reality and pervert and distort it so that it would agree with his intestines.
But then rogie, I would merely be mimicking you!!!!......:eek:

After all that seems to be your MO vis a vis your RIFTS that you are so compulsively obsessed with and have so many delusions over !!!

BOOOO!!!! There's a RIFT behind that tree! TAKE COVER!!!
 

arclighter

Guest
Nov 25, 2005
1,527
0
0
WoodPeckr said:
Eureka !!! We agree on something!!!

Myopia is their dominant gene, they have no vision.

Toyota is kicking their collective pompous butts for this very reason.

Have driven GM for the last 30 yrs but am thinking of switching, due to quality issuses, I see a drop off again in quality in spite if claims by GM saying they are better than ever. Recently drove a Toyota hybrid Prius and was shocked at how advanced it is! Never even considered looking at an Asian 'rice burner' in the past. They are years ahead of both GM & Ford in this regard.

People want a reliable car that won't self destruct after the short 3 year warranty expires as was the case with a GM Montana I recently had to dump with only 50,000 miles on it....it was literally falling apart!

We want reliable vehicles. While GM & Ford stress cupholders, heated seats & sideview mirrors, DVD players, satellite radio, etc., to mention a few. No wonder Toyota is on the verge of overtaking GM as number 1.
Wow we all agree. Now here is the kicker. Do you think GM and Ford should be rewarded for their incompetence through tariffs? Would this action more likely help GM and Ford to be more competitive, or would it more likely exacerbate the problem?
 
May 3, 2004
1,686
0
0
arclighter said:
Wow we all agree. Now here is the kicker. Do you think GM and Ford should be rewarded for their incompetence through tariffs? Would this action more likely help GM and Ford to be more competitive, or would it more likely exacerbate the problem?
Awaiting Pecker's blog-buttressed disinformercials.......
 

WoodPeckr

Protuberant Member
May 29, 2002
46,949
5,746
113
North America
thewoodpecker.net
arclighter said:
Wow we all agree. Now here is the kicker. Do you think GM and Ford should be rewarded for their incompetence through tariffs? Would this action more likely help GM and Ford to be more competitive, or would it more likely exacerbate the problem?

Of course GM & Ford should not be rewarded for their incompetence but something has to be done to stop this globalization that like a cancer, is fiscally destroying and bankrupting the USA. GM, Ford and other corporations are at this point merely using it to their advantage for all it's worth. While the big executives profit the real losers are the american workers who are the victims of this grand corporate caprice.

Here's an excellent analysis of the results to date of 'Free Trade' and some of its consequences for the USA, State of the Union and Economy. Read what Paul Craig Roberts the past Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration says about the results to date of, 'Bushienomics':

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article11746.htm

The US has become a rogue nation.

Gentle reader, if you prefer comforting lies to harsh truths, don't read this column.

By Paul Craig Roberts

02/01/06 "ICH" -- -- The state of the union is disastrous. By its naked aggression, bullying, illegal spying on Americans, and illegal torture and detentions, the Bush administration has demonstrated American contempt for the Geneva Convention, for human life and dignity, and for the civil liberties of its own citizens. Increasingly, the US is isolated in the world, having to resort to bribery and threats to impose its diktats. No country any longer looks to America for moral leadership. The US has become a rogue nation.

Least of all did President Bush tell any truth about the economy. He talked about economic growth rates without acknowledging that they result from eating the seed corn and do not produce jobs with a living wage for Americans. He touted a low rate of unemployment and did not admit that the figure is false because it does not count millions of discouraged workers who have dropped out of the work force.

Americans did not hear from Bush that a new Wal-Mart just opened on Chicago's city boundary and 25,000 people applied for 325 jobs (Chicago Sun-Times, Jan. 26), or that 11,000 people applied for a few Wal-Mart jobs in Oakland, California. Obviously, employment is far from full.

Neither did Bush tell Americans any of the dire facts reported by economist Charles McMillion in the January 19 issue of Manufacturing & Technology News:

During Bush's presidency the US has experienced the slowest job creation on record (going back to 1939). During the past five years private business has added only 958,000 net new jobs to the economy, while the government sector has added 1.1 million jobs. Moreover, as many of the jobs are not for a full work week, "the country ended 2005 with fewer private sector hours worked than it had in January 2001."

McMillion reports that the largest sources of private sector jobs have been health care and waitresses and bartenders. Other areas of the private sector lost so many jobs, including supervisory/managerial jobs, that had health care not added 1.4 million new jobs, the private sector would have experienced a net loss of 467,000 jobs between January 2001 and December 2005 despite an "economic recovery." Without the new jobs waiting tables and serving drinks, the US economy in the past five years would have eked out a measly 64,000 jobs. In other words, there is a job depression in the US.

McMillion reports that during the past five years of Bush's presidency the US has lost 16.5% of its manufacturing jobs. The hardest hit are clothes manufacturers, textile mills, communications equipment, and semiconductors. Workforces in these industries shrunk by 37 to 46 percent. These are amazing job losses. Major industries have shriveled to insignificance in half a decade.

Free trade, offshore production for US markets, and the outsourcing of US jobs are the culprits. McMillion writes that "every industry that faces foreign outsourcing or import competition is losing jobs," including both Ford and General Motors, both of which recently announced new job losses of 30,000 each. The parts supplier, Delphi, is on the ropes and cutting thousands of jobs, wages, benefits, and pensions.

If the free trade/outsourcing propaganda were true, would not at least some US export industries be experiencing a growth in employment? If free trade and outsourcing benefit the US economy, how did America run up $2.85 trillion in trade deficits over the last five years? This means Americans consumed almost $3 trillion dollars more in goods and services than they produced and turned over $3 trillion of their existing assets to foreigners to pay for their consumption. Consuming accumulated wealth makes a country poorer, not richer.

Americans are constantly reassured that America is the leader in advanced technology and intellectual property and doesn't need jobs making clothes or even semiconductors. McMillion puts the lie to this reassurance. During Bush's presidency, the US has lost its trade surplus in manufactured Advanced Technology Products (ATP). The US trade deficit in ATP now exceeds the US surplus in Intellectual Property licenses and fees. The US no longer earns enough from high tech to cover any part of its import bill for oil, autos, or clothing.

This is an astonishing development. The US "superpower" is dependent on China for advanced technology products and is dependent on Asia to finance its massive deficits and foreign wars. In view of the rapid collapse of US economic potential, my prediction in January 2004 that the US would be a third world economy in 20 years was optimistic. Another five years like the last, and little will be left. America's capacity to export manufactured goods has been so reduced that some economists say that there is no exchange rate at which the US can balance its trade.

McMillion reports that median household income has fallen for a record fifth year in succession. Growth in consumer spending has resulted from households spending their savings and equity in their homes. In 2005 for the first time since the Great Depression in the 1930s, American consumers spent more than they earned, and the government budget deficit was larger than all business savings combined. American households are paying a record share of their disposable income to service their debts.

With America hemorrhaging red ink in every direction, how much longer can the dollar hold on to its role as world reserve currency?

The World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, is the cradle of the propaganda that globalization is win-win for all concerned. Free trader Stephen Roach of Morgan Stanley reports that the mood at the recently concluded Davos meeting was different, because the predicted "wins" for the industrialized world have not made an appearance.

Roach writes that "job creation and real wages in the mature, industrialized economies have seriously lagged historical norms. It is now commonplace for recoveries in the developed world to be either jobless or wageless--or both."

Roach is the first free trade economist to admit that the disruptive technology of the Internet has dashed the globalization hopes. It was supposed to work like this: The first world would lose market share in tradable manufactured goods and make up the job and economic loss with highly-educated knowledge workers. The "win-win" was supposed to be cheaper manufactured goods for the first world and more and better jobs for the third world.

It did not work out this way, Roach writes, because the Internet allowed job outsourcing to quickly migrate from call centers and data processing to the upper end of the value chain, displacing first world employees in "software programming, engineering, design, and the medical profession, as well as a broad array of professionals in the legal, accounting, actuarial, consulting, and financial services industries."

This is what I have been writing for years, while the economics profession adopted a position of total denial. The first world gainers from globalization are the corporate executives, who gain millions of dollars in bonuses by arbitraging labor and substituting cheaper foreign labor for first world labor. For the past decade free market economists have served as apologists for corporate interests that are dismantling the ladders of upward mobility in the US and creating what McMillion writes is the worst income inequality on record.

Globalization is wiping out the American middle class and terminating jobs for university graduates, who now serve as temps, waitresses and bartenders. But the whores among economists and the evil men and women in the Bush administration still sing globalization's praises.

The state of the nation has never been worse. The Great Depression was an accident caused by the incompetence of the Federal Reserve, which was still new at its job. The new American job depression is the result of free trade ideology. The new job depression is creating a reserve army of the unemployed to serve as desperate recruits for neoconservative military adventures. Perhaps that explains the Bush administration's enthusiasm for globalization.

Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration. He was Associate Editor of the Wall Street Journal editorial page and Contributing Editor of National Review. He is coauthor of The Tyranny of Good Intentions.He can be reached at: paulcraigroberts@yahoo.com
 

arclighter

Guest
Nov 25, 2005
1,527
0
0
WoodPeckr said:
Of course GM & Ford should not be rewarded for their incompetence but something has to be done to stop this globalization that like a cancer, is fiscally destroying and bankrupting the USA. GM, Ford and other corporations are at this point merely using it to their advantage for all it's worth. While the big executives profit the real losers are the american workers who are the victims of this grand corporate caprice.

Here's an excellent analysis of the results to date of 'Free Trade' and some of its consequences for the USA, State of the Union and Economy. Read what Paul Craig Roberts the past Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration says about the results to date of, 'Bushienomics':

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article11746.htm

The US has become a rogue nation.

Gentle reader, if you prefer comforting lies to harsh truths, don't read this column.

By Paul Craig Roberts

02/01/06 "ICH" -- -- The state of the union is disastrous. By its naked aggression, bullying, illegal spying on Americans, and illegal torture and detentions, the Bush administration has demonstrated American contempt for the Geneva Convention, for human life and dignity, and for the civil liberties of its own citizens. Increasingly, the US is isolated in the world, having to resort to bribery and threats to impose its diktats. No country any longer looks to America for moral leadership. The US has become a rogue nation.

Least of all did President Bush tell any truth about the economy. He talked about economic growth rates without acknowledging that they result from eating the seed corn and do not produce jobs with a living wage for Americans. He touted a low rate of unemployment and did not admit that the figure is false because it does not count millions of discouraged workers who have dropped out of the work force.

Americans did not hear from Bush that a new Wal-Mart just opened on Chicago's city boundary and 25,000 people applied for 325 jobs (Chicago Sun-Times, Jan. 26), or that 11,000 people applied for a few Wal-Mart jobs in Oakland, California. Obviously, employment is far from full.

Neither did Bush tell Americans any of the dire facts reported by economist Charles McMillion in the January 19 issue of Manufacturing & Technology News:

During Bush's presidency the US has experienced the slowest job creation on record (going back to 1939). During the past five years private business has added only 958,000 net new jobs to the economy, while the government sector has added 1.1 million jobs. Moreover, as many of the jobs are not for a full work week, "the country ended 2005 with fewer private sector hours worked than it had in January 2001."

McMillion reports that the largest sources of private sector jobs have been health care and waitresses and bartenders. Other areas of the private sector lost so many jobs, including supervisory/managerial jobs, that had health care not added 1.4 million new jobs, the private sector would have experienced a net loss of 467,000 jobs between January 2001 and December 2005 despite an "economic recovery." Without the new jobs waiting tables and serving drinks, the US economy in the past five years would have eked out a measly 64,000 jobs. In other words, there is a job depression in the US.

McMillion reports that during the past five years of Bush's presidency the US has lost 16.5% of its manufacturing jobs. The hardest hit are clothes manufacturers, textile mills, communications equipment, and semiconductors. Workforces in these industries shrunk by 37 to 46 percent. These are amazing job losses. Major industries have shriveled to insignificance in half a decade.

Free trade, offshore production for US markets, and the outsourcing of US jobs are the culprits. McMillion writes that "every industry that faces foreign outsourcing or import competition is losing jobs," including both Ford and General Motors, both of which recently announced new job losses of 30,000 each. The parts supplier, Delphi, is on the ropes and cutting thousands of jobs, wages, benefits, and pensions.

If the free trade/outsourcing propaganda were true, would not at least some US export industries be experiencing a growth in employment? If free trade and outsourcing benefit the US economy, how did America run up $2.85 trillion in trade deficits over the last five years? This means Americans consumed almost $3 trillion dollars more in goods and services than they produced and turned over $3 trillion of their existing assets to foreigners to pay for their consumption. Consuming accumulated wealth makes a country poorer, not richer.

Americans are constantly reassured that America is the leader in advanced technology and intellectual property and doesn't need jobs making clothes or even semiconductors. McMillion puts the lie to this reassurance. During Bush's presidency, the US has lost its trade surplus in manufactured Advanced Technology Products (ATP). The US trade deficit in ATP now exceeds the US surplus in Intellectual Property licenses and fees. The US no longer earns enough from high tech to cover any part of its import bill for oil, autos, or clothing.

This is an astonishing development. The US "superpower" is dependent on China for advanced technology products and is dependent on Asia to finance its massive deficits and foreign wars. In view of the rapid collapse of US economic potential, my prediction in January 2004 that the US would be a third world economy in 20 years was optimistic. Another five years like the last, and little will be left. America's capacity to export manufactured goods has been so reduced that some economists say that there is no exchange rate at which the US can balance its trade.

McMillion reports that median household income has fallen for a record fifth year in succession. Growth in consumer spending has resulted from households spending their savings and equity in their homes. In 2005 for the first time since the Great Depression in the 1930s, American consumers spent more than they earned, and the government budget deficit was larger than all business savings combined. American households are paying a record share of their disposable income to service their debts.

With America hemorrhaging red ink in every direction, how much longer can the dollar hold on to its role as world reserve currency?

The World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, is the cradle of the propaganda that globalization is win-win for all concerned. Free trader Stephen Roach of Morgan Stanley reports that the mood at the recently concluded Davos meeting was different, because the predicted "wins" for the industrialized world have not made an appearance.

Roach writes that "job creation and real wages in the mature, industrialized economies have seriously lagged historical norms. It is now commonplace for recoveries in the developed world to be either jobless or wageless--or both."

Roach is the first free trade economist to admit that the disruptive technology of the Internet has dashed the globalization hopes. It was supposed to work like this: The first world would lose market share in tradable manufactured goods and make up the job and economic loss with highly-educated knowledge workers. The "win-win" was supposed to be cheaper manufactured goods for the first world and more and better jobs for the third world.

It did not work out this way, Roach writes, because the Internet allowed job outsourcing to quickly migrate from call centers and data processing to the upper end of the value chain, displacing first world employees in "software programming, engineering, design, and the medical profession, as well as a broad array of professionals in the legal, accounting, actuarial, consulting, and financial services industries."

This is what I have been writing for years, while the economics profession adopted a position of total denial. The first world gainers from globalization are the corporate executives, who gain millions of dollars in bonuses by arbitraging labor and substituting cheaper foreign labor for first world labor. For the past decade free market economists have served as apologists for corporate interests that are dismantling the ladders of upward mobility in the US and creating what McMillion writes is the worst income inequality on record.

Globalization is wiping out the American middle class and terminating jobs for university graduates, who now serve as temps, waitresses and bartenders. But the whores among economists and the evil men and women in the Bush administration still sing globalization's praises.

The state of the nation has never been worse. The Great Depression was an accident caused by the incompetence of the Federal Reserve, which was still new at its job. The new American job depression is the result of free trade ideology. The new job depression is creating a reserve army of the unemployed to serve as desperate recruits for neoconservative military adventures. Perhaps that explains the Bush administration's enthusiasm for globalization.

Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration. He was Associate Editor of the Wall Street Journal editorial page and Contributing Editor of National Review. He is coauthor of The Tyranny of Good Intentions.He can be reached at: paulcraigroberts@yahoo.com
And how would protectionism make our companies more able to compete on the world stage? Would it have helped the US auto industry back in the seventies to become more competitive if imports weren't allowed into the US?
 

papasmerf

New member
Oct 22, 2002
26,531
0
0
42.55.65N 78.43.73W
arclighter said:
And how would protectionism make our companies more able to compete on the world stage? Would it have helped the US auto industry back in the seventies to become more competitive if imports weren't allowed into the US?
Keep in mind, it was the BIG 3 that began importing cars from Japan and today still hold a stake in the companies.
 
Ashley Madison
Toronto Escorts