Our Sponsors
____________________
Note: Comments are moderated so be sure that your responses are expressed in a respectable and friendly way. We are here to express our thoughts toward controversial issues, not to scold or defame anyone. Watch what you say, and remember that by using this site, you agree to our Terms Of Use and Privacy Policy.
This is an ongoing problem. We keep importing too much stuff from China and these others countries to the point where they were becoming way too interdependent on them.
Although we are still dominating in financial services, we need to work on production.
Government needs to get its hands and fingers out of private business, and that is the only way that government can stimulate exports.
Because of all the heavy taxes and the government supported union rediculous benefit packages, business have had no choice but to outsource other countries in order to make enough money to meet those deadly contracts.
Now I know that STS will have much to say as to how government makes things better – so I ask you to all take a real hard look at just who it was that killed the USA . . . . The destruction came from within our own government, not from outside enemies.
I agree the government needs to get out of the economy and turn things back over to the private sector. That is the only way to turn around the economy.
I don't think you've been paying much attention to what I say or how market economics works. I've said nothing of the kind of how "government does things better". When you want to start paying attention instead of presuming I'm some sort of socialist, go ahead and let me know.
Until then, I'd prefer it if you didn't try to this sort of personal animus you seem to have developed so obvious by calling me out every time you post something and ascribing to me motivations and beliefs that I do not in fact have (as in most cases, quite the opposite have been expressed, repeatedly). I at least wait until you spout off on a topic to begin ascribing motivations and beliefs based upon what you state are those beliefs and motivations.
As to your point, governments did not hold a gun to GM's head and make them sign those sorts of union benefit packages for private sector production of goods and services. Governments did have options to not give public sector unions, like cops, teachers, firefighters, prison guards, etc these ridiculous benefits and pension packages, but public sector unions don't actually produce anything that we would be exporting anyway. (I'd argue they don't usually produce much of anything at all in fact, but that apparently can not actually be what I think since you know I will have much to say which opposes this line of argument).
Simple question you might want to check the answer: what country is the #1 exporting country of goods in the world?
As a hint, it's not China.
Since you always disagree with literally everything I say, I have decided to invite you to all of my posts that I know you will disagree on.
Case in point, Paragraph 3 above . . .
However, you are wrong about Obama and GM – If GM and Chrysler did not bow to Obama's "car czar" dictates their executive officers would have faced federal charges.
Obama is in the pocket of Unions – accept it, we now live in a socialist controlled country . . . for a little while longer, maybe.
I think this a situational thing. And by that I mean that government should be able to respond to unfair trading practices implemented by other governments. Now this isn't to say that government should stimulate exports, so much as be able to tax imports in response to similar taxation by other nations. It's a bit vague I know, but this question is rather broad.
GM's bad deals with unions precede Obama and TARP funding to bail out those same unions. And they could have just gone ahead with Chapter 11 and took their chances. If you have some evidence that they would have faced federal charges (and on what grounds?) go ahead and present it.
There was some arm twisting that I know of when TARP went in for the banks, but that was Paulson-Bush. And I don't think that involved federal charges either.
I don't disagree with Democrats and being in the pocket of unions, but the actual power of private sector unions is much diminished, and even when it does exercise some power and influence, it usually has very little to do with the overall economic performance (or exports, as in this conversation here). It's principally the public sector unions that need to be dealt with as bankrupting and socializing the economy, teachers, cops, etc.
As to your calling out, I do find it easy to disagree with you. You make lazy arguments and platitudes rather than complex ones that account for reality, so fine, I will disagree with you frequently. But my actual problem with you doing it is how you're doing it: by presuming what my argument is going to be, when it is clear you do not understand what my actual views are (as in this case).
(note also, I do not disagree with literally everything you say. I did not take issue with your opposition to the draft. That was actually a pretty sensible objection and I gave you the props for it. The issue is primarily the way you say it, often deploying ad hominem attacks, or the "reasons" you've used to arrive at sometimes similar conclusions, and more often, very radically different ones. Where we do agree, which happens far more often than I agree with say, Jared, it often offends me that some people could take your approach to be the basis for my own, so extreme and insensible do your reasons appear to be from my position. And it falls upon me to demonstrate that there are other reasons for arriving at those conclusions.)
Agreed, they need to take a step back from this and let the people work.