Skyclad1uhm1
Lifer
- Aug 10, 2001
- 11,383
- 87
- 91
The US has been told off for the steel taxes, and if Bush does not lift it the WTO will allow the EU to tax a shitload of US products.
EU, China, Japan, Brazil, Norway, South Korea and New Zealand, not sure if the US has any choice in this matterOriginally posted by: Skyclad1uhm1
The US has been told off for the steel taxes, and if Bush does not lift it the WTO will allow the EU to tax a shitload of US products.
Originally posted by: rjain
Hopefully, the US will adhere to the WTO's demand and allow the US heavy manufacturing industries to recover without unnecessary fetters. If only we did this earlier, our GDP growth could have been much higher even before this last quarter.
Originally posted by: rjain
Lunar: good to know you hate our steel-using industries.
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: GrGr
I was thinking more along the lines that Bush's tax cuts were poorly designed to stimulate the US economy. Bush had his proirities wrong and the Europeans know it.
This is about corperate taxes that where in place before Bush came into office, but thanks for playing.
Originally posted by: LunarRay
Originally posted by: rjain
Lunar: good to know you hate our steel-using industries.
I'm just a simple monkey looking for my banana. Just like all my other monkey brethern hither and yon. You don't see the reason to help our steel producers reorganize and don't see the (up to) 30% tariff as helping them. Fine by me. With out it our producers will not be able to reorg and will be shut out by the world. It was for 3 years and was needed for the political and commercial interest of this industry.
You are convinced that for US Companies to compete they need being competitive with the world. True! To do this we need paying minimum wage and buying the goesintas from abroad too. We'll have nothing but minimum wage assembly workers. Bio tech folks are next. Soon every one will be competitive with everyone else.. and the cost structure will be the same. Has to be don't you think?
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: LunarRay
Originally posted by: rjain
Lunar: good to know you hate our steel-using industries.
I'm just a simple monkey looking for my banana. Just like all my other monkey brethern hither and yon. You don't see the reason to help our steel producers reorganize and don't see the (up to) 30% tariff as helping them. Fine by me. With out it our producers will not be able to reorg and will be shut out by the world. It was for 3 years and was needed for the political and commercial interest of this industry.
You are convinced that for US Companies to compete they need being competitive with the world. True! To do this we need paying minimum wage and buying the goesintas from abroad too. We'll have nothing but minimum wage assembly workers. Bio tech folks are next. Soon every one will be competitive with everyone else.. and the cost structure will be the same. Has to be don't you think?
Yep, time to do away with minimum wage and start opening Sweat Shops right here in America so there won't be an excuse to send the jobs overseas.
If they understood this, they wouldn't support measures that are so destructive to our economy in the first place. In fact, these measures are destructive to our economy even in the absence of a trade war.Originally posted by: rahvin
Cheerleaders:
Make no mistake, a trade war is seriously bad mojo for EVERYONE.
Originally posted by: rjain
Do you really think data entry is a $100,000 job? Do you really think that's all finance is? How does a bunch of data do anything? Maybe the $100,000 job is in making that data do something, no? If someone can do that job, then why wouldn't he get paid as much as he deserves for it? And what happened to that lucrative farming profession. Now plowhands are hardly paid anything!! What is the world coming to??
If all you can do is a sweat shop job, why should someone pay you professional wages? If you want a good job, get some useful skills. Don't whine to the world that they owe you money because you're you.
Originally posted by: rjain
If everyone is so dumb and so lazy that they don't want to create new technologies, but just want to do things that everyone else knows how to do, maybe that's what's best for our society. You seem to be obsessed with the normal trimming of overspeculation that occurs. Why don't you study the history of every single technology ever created? All the way from agriculture to, now, global information networks. Where are all the sweatshop farming jobs? Do you really think that a mechanical engineer at John Deere is a sweatshop worker?
Originally posted by: rjain
So mechanical engineers aren't needed in order to engineer mechanical devices. Ok, so what do you call those people? With the savings on labor, they can afford to pay the mechanical engineer more. In fact, if the laborers are less skilled, the engineers will be more needed in order to come up with a more reliable and tolerant manufacturing process. If Americans are at all worth our salt, why would we not be able to compete in a fair global market?
If we are overpaid, lazy, and underqualified, then we'll lose whether or not we gouge our manufacturing industries out of business. But I don't see how price gouging our manufacturing industries will make them any more competitive. You want a manufacturing recovery, but then you want to force our manufacturing companies to take their factories out of the country or go out of business all together. I don't get it.
So even though we can outsource work to other countries, they can't outsource to us? The only thing that needs to leave the US is the factory, so that they can get steel at competitive prices in order to create products at competitive prices. All these tarriffs are doing is reducing the attractiveness of the US manufacturing industry.Originally posted by: LunarRay
If the company closes down they won't be needed. Gee Rjain, I think one can properly infer from this quote of my statement "They may go out of business move offshore for parts and assemble or just buy an Indian facility and make the tractor there. In any event, the mechanical engineer will either not be needed or will have to reduce his pay so the company can compete.."
The GNP wouldn't necessarily be increased, as those who are adept at making revenue will have to give up that revenue in order to employ people who are earning more money than they bring in due to minimum wages. So no, it's not obvious, Mr A. Weblog.Full Employment brings budget surplus via increased tax revenue from both the individual and the corporate side without increased rates. It is volume related. The GNP would necessarily be increased and a debt that stays the same percentage of a increased GNP would mean budget deficit and not surplus.. even with the reduced tax burden on the citizen (remember I said, reduce the % of debt).. this is obvious.
And yet you said that the reason trade is done in dollars is because of the US trade deficit. According to you, a stronger US economy would decrease our trade deficit, which would reduce the attractiveness of holding, and therefore the strength of, the dollar.The trade deficit to credit issue presupposes that with full employment a few dynamics are at play. We'd still import and export but with the full employment we'd expect to see either an increased export to balance imports or a decreased import offset by the production and consumption of US goods. Additionally, the attempt of the EEO to move oil and other commodities to the euro from the US $ would be thwarted by the strength of the US Economy (remember the EEO is expanding and will be the largest market soon and that brings power).
Read the link regaring the Euro Denominated Commodity issue in the other thread.
Full employment is impossible because the moment it happens, employers get scared and cut back their business, reducing demand from their suppliers and possibly forcing them to lay off employees, as I said before.The above are the dynamics that occurs but, of course full employment (the term) is argued as 4% unemployed not because there are no jobs available but because the economic models suggest folks in transit, babies, illness, etc result in that figure.
In any event, the simple full employment statement results (with out question) in lots of favorable other occurances.