The erosion of sensible nationalism led to the curse of outsourcing...

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

lotus503

Diamond Member
Feb 12, 2005
6,502
1
76
Oh, corporations made you buy all that cheap import crap in the 70's......

Do you even listen to yourself????

They actually do, through incrementalism, neuroscience and human behavior.

I am typing this from my iPhone 4s, that Replaced my 6 month old perfectly working iphone4.
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,669
8
0
I agree Liberals didn't stop anyone, however they also made it easier and joined in the party.

Who do you think helped advocate and sign into law treaties such as the GATT (Global Act of Trade and Tariffs) treaty or NAFTA? Who gave China the coveted "Favored trading partner" status along with all the benefits that came with it?

Oh that's right it was Bill Clinton and his globalist friends on the far-left who wanted to "redistribute" what they saw as the "unfair" trade advantages and living standards found in the US to the rest of the 3rd world without fully understanding the consequences that would occur.

In fact there was a time when many people on the left laughed at the economic views expressed by Paleo-conservatives such as Pat Buchanan or economically conservative independents such as Ross Perot or independently wealthy businessmen such as Sir James Goldsmith, etc all of whom advocated against these treaties on the basis that they were job killers for Americans workers.

Funny how the most pro-American worker serious presidential candidate was a billionaire businessman.
 

the DRIZZLE

Platinum Member
Sep 6, 2007
2,956
1
81
In 1960 US exports and imports where 5.2% and 4.4% of GDP respectively. Today they are 12.7% and 16.3% Let's just ignore all the benefits that free trade has brought us and focus only on the negatives.
 

blankslate

Diamond Member
Jun 16, 2008
8,581
472
126
What is this tax break you speak of? Fern

I speak of the tax deductions mentioned by the article I linked that the democrats in congress failed to repeal because of opposition by republicans.

maybe I used imprecise language. But to me a tax deduction for doing something is much the same as a tax break.

In other words rtfa
 

Infohawk

Lifer
Jan 12, 2002
17,844
1
0
Let's just ignore all the benefits that free trade has brought us and focus only on the negatives.

Nope, let's compare them. I don't see any scenario in which what we've seen since the 70s is worth it for the Western world.

Pros:
-cheaper iphones and sneakers

Cons:
-said sneakers are made by children; said iphones are made by people living in a dictatorship who effectively have no rights or labor protections
-de-industrialization
-a screwed up labor market (this is the biggest problem by a long-shot)
-a transfer of industrial and scientific know-how to dictatorships that directly puts the US at risk
 

DucatiMonster696

Diamond Member
Aug 13, 2009
4,269
1
71
Nope, let's compare them. I don't see any scenario in which what we've seen since the 70s is worth it for the Western world.

Pros:
-cheaper iphones and sneakers

Cons:
-said sneakers are made by children; said iphones are made by people living in a dictatorship who effectively have no rights or labor protections
-de-industrialization
-a screwed up labor market (this is the biggest problem by a long-shot)
-a transfer of industrial and scientific know-how to dictatorships that directly puts the US at risk

This.

I'm pretty big proponent of free markets globally and locally but the method and manner in which our labor markets were allowed to be directly exposed to 3rd world nations such as China was completely reckless and ill thought. Free markets work wonders when economies are comparable or allowed to rise to be comparable. However our exposure to China was bound to end up being one sided as they have from very start manipulated their currency and labor markets to ensure that no real parity would ever be reached that would allow them to become an equivalent or greater importer of US goods and services.
 

the DRIZZLE

Platinum Member
Sep 6, 2007
2,956
1
81
Nope, let's compare them. I don't see any scenario in which what we've seen since the 70s is worth it for the Western world.

Pros:
-cheaper iphones and sneakers

Cons:
-said sneakers are made by children; said iphones are made by people living in a dictatorship who effectively have no rights or labor protections
-de-industrialization
-a screwed up labor market (this is the biggest problem by a long-shot)
-a transfer of industrial and scientific know-how to dictatorships that directly puts the US at risk

You are ignoring the fact that exports have gone up 2.5x during the same period. That's a pretty big pro.

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2
 

dank69

Lifer
Oct 6, 2009
35,206
28,223
136
You are ignoring the fact that exports have gone up 2.5x during the same period. That's a pretty big pro.

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2
I'm no expert, but it would seem that ratio of export to import is all that matters.
 
Apr 27, 2012
10,086
58
86
Why don't we just say that both the left and right is happy with outsourcing.

The right, because it increases corporate profits.

The left, because it helps poor people in 3rd world countries.

Just like the housing bubble both sides ideologies were stroked.

Completely agree, both are responsible for this mess except the left gets less blame:confused:

The OP is still right on though, the left has totally destroyed the US and doesn't like patriots and nationalism
 

Fern

Elite Member
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
173
106
I speak of the tax deductions mentioned by the article I linked that the democrats in congress failed to repeal because of opposition by republicans.

maybe I used imprecise language. But to me a tax deduction for doing something is much the same as a tax break.

In other words rtfa

The article doesn't mention any specific tax breaks or deductions.

Tax deductions are not tax breaks.

"Income tax" is a tax on net income. Therefore to be an income tax, as permitted under our Constitution, ordinary and necessary expenses must be allowed as a deduction in arriving at net income. If you don't allow those expenses, you're not an income tax. If it doesn't qualify as an income tax it may not be Constitutional.

"Tax breaks" are special deductions etc. permitted to induce taxpayers to some action Congress deems beneficial. E.g., the section 179 expense permits taxpayers who buy equipment to deduct the entire amount in the year of purchase instead of spreading the deduction out over the useful lifetime of the equipment. Congress does this to spur taxpayers to make large equipment purchases now instead of a later year.

If you close a plant, you will have ordinary and necessary business expenses from that closure. If you open a new plant, regardless of it's location, you will also have ordinary and necessary business expenses.

I am unaware of any "tax breaks" for opening a new plant in a foreign country. In fact, things like the section 179 expense are already not allowed for foreign situs property.

I urge extreme caution when a Congress person speaks about taxes, particularly when speaking about "tax breaks" and loopholes". Everyone knows that tax law is incredibly complicated. The only person I'm aware in Congress with any tax education/experience is Michele Bachmann and I would take any remarks she said about tax with a bucket of salt.

Until someone can point to some specifics I will continue to assert that we have no tax breaks for moving businesses abroad. It's a bunch of political BS.

Fern
 

blankslate

Diamond Member
Jun 16, 2008
8,581
472
126
Until someone can point to some specifics I will continue to assert that we have no tax breaks for moving businesses abroad. It's a bunch of political BS. Fern

So you'll just ignore the basic point of the article until someone takes the time to read through the tax code and find the specific deductions...

Okay...

I'm fine with trusting a news site.
 

Fern

Elite Member
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
173
106
So you'll just ignore the basic point of the article until someone takes the time to read through the tax code and find the specific deductions...

Okay...

I'm fine with trusting a news site.

Yes, I'll ignore it.

I've already spent considerable time trying to prove their points for them. I shouldn't be trying to find any tax rules that are tax breaks for closing a plant and moving it overseas. They should be demonstrating that those tax breaks actually exist.

All they need do is consult with an international tax CPA or attorney. They'd be able to sufficiently explain such breaks if they existed so the author could enumerate them in his/her article.

Over the years I have found that the vast majority of authors of these type articles have eff'ing clue of what they are talking about. The article is clearly a political piece (it concerns legislation) with the gist of claims about tax breaks for moving coming from Debbie Stabenow who has no clue about taxes, international or otherwise. She has no educational background or experience in tax nor in accounting. She has never even been assigned to any Congressional committees on tax.

I don't think any news source (or politician) should automatically be trusted. Perhaps because I'm a tax professional and can look into such claims, and in almost every instance they have been unsupportable, I am most wary about tax articles.

Fern
 

blankslate

Diamond Member
Jun 16, 2008
8,581
472
126
I don't think any news source (or politician) should automatically be trusted. Perhaps because I'm a tax professional and can look into such claims, and in almost every instance they have been unsupportable, I am most wary about tax articles.

To each their own. I'm glad someone has the ability to vet every piece of news they come across on their very own.
 

dank69

Lifer
Oct 6, 2009
35,206
28,223
136
Yes, I'll ignore it.

I've already spent considerable time trying to prove their points for them. I shouldn't be trying to find any tax rules that are tax breaks for closing a plant and moving it overseas. They should be demonstrating that those tax breaks actually exist.

All they need do is consult with an international tax CPA or attorney. They'd be able to sufficiently explain such breaks if they existed so the author could enumerate them in his/her article.

Over the years I have found that the vast majority of authors of these type articles have eff'ing clue of what they are talking about. The article is clearly a political piece (it concerns legislation) with the gist of claims about tax breaks for moving coming from Debbie Stabenow who has no clue about taxes, international or otherwise. She has no educational background or experience in tax nor in accounting. She has never even been assigned to any Congressional committees on tax.

I don't think any news source (or politician) should automatically be trusted. Perhaps because I'm a tax professional and can look into such claims, and in almost every instance they have been unsupportable, I am most wary about tax articles.

Fern
Bill
Summary:
Official Summary

9/21/2010--Introduced.Creating American Jobs and Ending Offshoring Act - Amends the Internal Revenue Code to:
(1) exempt from employment taxes for a 24-month period employers who hire a employee who replaces another employee who is not a citizen or permanent resident of the United States and who performs similar duties overseas;
(2) deny any tax deduction, deduction for loss, or tax credit for the cost of an American jobs offshoring transaction (defined as any transaction in which a taxpayer reduces or eliminates the operation of a trade or business in connection with the start-up or expansion of such trade or business outside the United States); and
(3) eliminate the deferral of tax on income of a controlled foreign corporation attributable to property imported into the United States by such corporation or a related person, except for property exported before substantial use in the United States and for agricultural commodities not grown in the United States in commercially marketable quantities.
 

rchiu

Diamond Member
Jun 8, 2002
3,846
0
0
Nope, let's compare them. I don't see any scenario in which what we've seen since the 70s is worth it for the Western world.

Pros:
-cheaper iphones and sneakers

Cons:
-said sneakers are made by children; said iphones are made by people living in a dictatorship who effectively have no rights or labor protections
-de-industrialization
-a screwed up labor market (this is the biggest problem by a long-shot)
-a transfer of industrial and scientific know-how to dictatorships that directly puts the US at risk

So the US outsource jobs to make sneakers, but create jobs to make
1. Aircraft
2. Semiconductors
3. Cars
4. Pharmaceutical products
5. Industrial Machines
(top 5 US exports)

I'd say that's good trade off.
 

Infohawk

Lifer
Jan 12, 2002
17,844
1
0
So the US outsource jobs to make sneakers, but create jobs to make
1. Aircraft
2. Semiconductors
3. Cars
4. Pharmaceutical products
5. Industrial Machines
(top 5 US exports)

I'd say that's good trade off.

There's a gaping trade deficit. Nice try though.
 

rchiu

Diamond Member
Jun 8, 2002
3,846
0
0
There's a gaping trade deficit. Nice try though.

Free lesson for you. Trade deficit is not necessary bad. Big trade deficit =/= big unemployment. US has huge trade deficit for years, and we only have unemployment the past couple of years.
 

Matt1970

Lifer
Mar 19, 2007
12,320
3
0
It's both sides. We were warned back in the 70's that every time we bought a foreign car or anything else that we would lose jobs. We didn’t listen, we just had to have a Subaru and a $5 toaster. It's just now politically expedient to blame the right, left or corporations.
 

lotus503

Diamond Member
Feb 12, 2005
6,502
1
76
Completely agree, both are responsible for this mess except the left gets less blame:confused:

The OP is still right on though, the left has totally destroyed the US and doesn't like patriots and nationalism

It's not the left or the right, it's the entire population of voters who have destroyed this country.

People are stupid, most of them don't know anything about of our government or economy works.

Then there are the idiots like yourself who think politics and governments are team sports.
 

Infohawk

Lifer
Jan 12, 2002
17,844
1
0
US has huge trade deficit for years, and we only have unemployment the past couple of years.

The US has been losing manufacturing jobs for decades now and we're seeing white-collar job losses now too. And we've seen that many of the jobs that replaced manufacturing jobs (like mortgage brokers in the 2000s) are not as sound. Fewer and fewer people are buying the garbage idea that free trade with the third world is benefiting the majority of Americans. You basically have to buy into trickle-down economics to think it does.
 

First

Lifer
Jun 3, 2002
10,518
271
136
The US has been losing manufacturing jobs for decades now and we're seeing white-collar job losses now too. And we've seen that many of the jobs that replaced manufacturing jobs (like mortgage brokers in the 2000s) are not as sound. Fewer and fewer people are buying the garbage idea that free trade with the third world is benefiting the majority of Americans. You basically have to buy into trickle-down economics to think it does.

We've averaged a 6.3% unemployment rate since 1802. Guess what the unemployment rate average was between 1980, when free trade really began to boom with China, and today? Exactly the same, even including this outlier financial crisis (which was unrelated to trade of course).

Free trade has nothing to do with trickle down, and everything to do with comparative advantage, which is a well known and very logical extension of a business transaction that differs only in the fact that it crosses borders. The ability to collect taxes differs across borders, though, so it is indeed important that the gov't recoup those revenues. And it's important that free trade isn't done with countries that pervert that comparative advantage with tariffs or currency manipulation (i.e. China). But the bottom line is that there is no evidence that a trade deficit or trade surplus, in moderation, significantly hurts the economy in any way, shape or form. That's just nonsense not supported by any reliable data.
 
Last edited:

Infohawk

Lifer
Jan 12, 2002
17,844
1
0
We've averaged a 6.3% unemployment rate since 1802. Guess what the unemployment rate average was between 1980, when free trade really began to boom with China, and today? Exactly the same, even including this outlier financial crisis (which was unrelated to trade of course).

Free trade has nothing to do with trickle down, and everything to do with comparative advantage, which is a well known and very logical extension of a business transaction that differs only in the fact that it crosses borders. The ability to collect taxes differs across borders, though, so it is indeed important that the gov't recoup those revenues. And it's important that free trade isn't done with countries that pervert that comparative advantage with tariffs or currency manipulation (i.e. China). But the bottom line is that there is no evidence that a trade deficit or trade surplus, in moderation, significantly hurts the economy in any way, shape or form. That's just nonsense not supported by any reliable data.

I seem to recall you insisting that wages haven't gone down. Do you still stand by that?

I don't find unemployment rates particularly useful. Mexico has low unemployment. Anyway, in this instance your two data points are not very informative. Time is running out for people making the comparison between the early 80s recession and the current one. This one has been going on for longer now hasn't it? That changes the analysis.

Notice that I didn't say that free trade is connected to trickle-down. I said that free trade with the third world does and specifically in terms of the average American. Who benefits from third-world trade? Capital owners. They can do away with the costs of environmental and labor protections and maximize profit. What benefit is this to middle-class Americans if they lose their jobs or have their wages reduced or have to take out enormous student loans to have a quality of life that is no better than that of their parents?
 

woolfe9999

Diamond Member
Mar 28, 2005
7,164
0
0
The US has been losing manufacturing jobs for decades now and we're seeing white-collar job losses now too. And we've seen that many of the jobs that replaced manufacturing jobs (like mortgage brokers in the 2000s) are not as sound. Fewer and fewer people are buying the garbage idea that free trade with the third world is benefiting the majority of Americans. You basically have to buy into trickle-down economics to think it does.

True to a point, but 50-60% of our trade deficit is in petroleum alone. This is a natural resource, not a manfufactured good, and our deficit in petroleum is due to high per capita consumption and not yet having viable alternatives. If we increase domestic production, provide alternative sources, reduce energy consumption, or some combination of all of the above, our trade deficit isn't all that "gaping," not compared to total GDP. I think those who cite the trade deficit in favor of protectionism conveniently ignore the single largest factor driving the deficit because it doesn't fit well with the protectionist argument.