Pages

 

Recent Pages by mikiesmoky2:
OCCUPY: Here is the key to bring down the political 'House of Cards' 85% of Democrats and 63% of Republicans are WRONG!! Analysis of President Obama's American Jobs Plan My Initial Responses to President Obama's Jobs Bill Is Herman Cain a liar or has he been misled regarding his 9-9-9 concept?

Jump to bottom

11 comments

1 Bob Dillon  Apr 28, 2011 9:12:52pm

Might consider adding our banking system to the list.

2 freetoken  Apr 28, 2011 9:40:51pm

Money is not “energy”. Just the opposite: money represents the consumption of energy.

Our “economic decline” (assuming there is such a thing) is not because of free trade, though certainly free trade can multiply the effects of poor economic policies.

The very simple reason for moving manufacturing off shore - and I should note that outside of the really cheap articles one finds at Walmart it is just as easy to find goods that say “made in Mexico” or Bangladesh or Pakistan or Indonesia… - is costs, and not just labor costs.

However, the choice to build or not build a manufacturing plant in the US is just that - a choice. Quality costs and as long as the American wants to buy only the cheapest of goods then suppliers will have to make the cheapest of goods, and that means the servile wages paid in most countries.

3 mikiesmoky2  Apr 28, 2011 10:24:41pm

re: #1 Bobibutu

Might consider adding our banking system to the list.

I consider that as a subset to Wall Street element, since WS has about taken it over.
LOL

mz

4 mikiesmoky2  Apr 28, 2011 10:38:56pm

re: #2 freetoken

Thank you for your comments:

REGARDING: Money is not “energy”. Just the opposite: money represents the consumption of energy.
RESPONSE: Work = energy
One is paid for his or her work
The payment is in money, which is a representation of that stored energy/work
That energy can be put to “work” by spending, investing, paying obligations

REGARDING Our “economic decline” (assuming there is such a thing) is not because of free trade, though certainly free trade can multiply the effects of poor economic policies.
RESPONSE: Sorry, but I don’t understand your point, especially since you haven’t defined “free trade”, i.e., free trade to one may not be free trade to another

REGARDING: The very simple reason for moving manufacturing off shore - and I should note that outside of the really cheap articles one finds at Walmart it is just as easy to find goods that say “made in Mexico” or Bangladesh or Pakistan or Indonesia… - is costs, and not just labor costs.
RESPONSE: I suggest that you go into a Best Buy, pick out any 10 items and offer your results.

REGARDING: However, the choice to build or not build a manufacturing plant in the US is just that - a choice. Quality costs and as long as the American wants to buy only the cheapest of goods then suppliers will have to make the cheapest of goods, and that means the servile wages paid in most countries.
RESPONSE: I have no problem with those thoughts, but you, apparently, didn’t understand the comment I offered regarding this:

“Unless and until we take the appropriate actions to mitigate this dissipation of energies, the path of our economy can only be a continuing decline, i.e., “economic erosion”.”

Again…, thank you for your thoughts.

mz

5 Rightwingconspirator  Apr 29, 2011 8:33:07am

If one takes a parochial view, most of this is correct. If one takes a global view, of the larger economy that is in the business of housing feeding and developing the lifestyles of billions, we did a great thing at significant sacrifice.

One likely alternative “history” if you will is China remained poor, relatively undeveloped without all that western money, and becomes belligerent and territorially expansive. Armed with nuclear weapons and a massive military in manpower. Seeking to gain the wherewithal to build and expand China may have become more than an economic challenger, but in fact a nuclear armed expansionist nation. ]

Of course all we have to do to balance the equation is match China’s import duties. Reciprocal tariff rates would force their markets to open more to ours.

6 [deleted]  Apr 29, 2011 8:34:23am
7 Rightwingconspirator  Apr 29, 2011 8:56:30am

Charles, please delete my #6 here I messed up and used a real name…

8 Rightwingconspirator  Apr 29, 2011 9:10:57am

Okay Mikiesmoky2….
I found a study that will fill in some data on this issue. I’ll split it with ya if the data is welcome to you.

rand.org

Just write me at my email…

9 mikiesmoky2  Apr 29, 2011 11:17:16am

re: #5 Rightwingconspirator

If one takes a parochial view, most of this is correct. If one takes a global view, of the larger economy that is in the business of housing feeding and developing the lifestyles of billions, we did a great thing at significant sacrifice.

One likely alternative “history” if you will is China remained poor, relatively undeveloped without all that western money, and becomes belligerent and territorially expansive. Armed with nuclear weapons and a massive military in manpower. Seeking to gain the wherewithal to build and expand China may have become more than an economic challenger, but in fact a nuclear armed expansionist nation. ]

Of course all we have to do to balance the equation is match China’s import duties. Reciprocal tariff rates would force their markets to open more to ours.

That is a valid POV, but it is ancillary to the point of my writing. It is, absolutely, well worthy of a separate discussion.

Daniel, I think you understand my philosophy about discussing a topic to resolution without convoluting or obfuscating.

mz

10 Rightwingconspirator  Apr 29, 2011 4:06:01pm

re: #9 mikiesmoky2

Well, I assert the simple means to answer or comment as I see fit, since I’m taking the time to get into your subject… Where I disagree is your term Malfeasance. Hyperbole as it were, along with on one hand not blaming China for doing as asked, yet calling China a cancer in your headline.

I think the paper I linked will show the truer motives for the decisions on China and trade, and offshoring. My offer to split the cost still stands.

11 mikiesmoky2  Apr 29, 2011 11:01:23pm

re: #10 Rightwingconspirator

re: #10 Rightwingconspirator

REGARDING: Well, I assert the simple means to answer or comment as I see fit, since I’m taking the time to get into your subject…
RESPONSE: Well, whereas I am, sincerely, appreciative of anyone who responds with rational or even quasi-rational offerings, I do not appreciate discussing something that is non-responsive, i.e., tangential, at best. If one believes that my comments have stimulated the need for a separate discussion, one should offer another post for that discussion.

REGARDING: Where I disagree is your term Malfeasance. Hyperbole as it were,
RESPONSE: I believe you are responding to: “This phenomenon has been created and stimulated by greed and by the malfeasance of our leadership within the Legislative and Executive branches of our government”
Thus, you, apparently, don’t believe there was any “malfeasance” on the part of the Legislative and Executive branches.
“Malfeasance” by those two entities should be attributed IF they could have mitigated the magnitude of the “off shoring” phenomena.
There are so many things that should have been done, beginning with determining ALL the reasons for the rush to offshore and to create legislation that would mitigate these causes to shift production, e.g.:
1) Change from allowing the write off of the abandonment of facilities and all other costs related to the move to having these costs capitalized and amortized over a period such as 40 years.
2) Eliminate ALL minimum wage laws and expand the EITC (Earned Income Tax Credit) to cover any citizen who is older than 17. This would help to enable industries to function at competitive labor costs.
3) Legislate a single-payer health care system, thereby eliminating health care costs from being included in the cost of production.

REGARDING: ….along with on one hand not blaming China for doing as asked, yet calling China a cancer in your headline.
RESPONSE: I am struggling to understand why you made that comment, since it indicates that you didn’t understand. The “headline” was the attention-grabber with the explanation provided within the article.


This page has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

Create a PageThis is the LGF Pages posting bookmarklet. To use it, drag this button to your browser's bookmark bar, and title it 'LGF Pages' (or whatever you like). Then browse to a site you want to post, select some text on the page to use for a quote, click the bookmarklet, and the Pages posting window will appear with the title, text, and any embedded video or audio files already filled in, ready to go.
Or... you can just click this button to open the Pages posting window right away.
Last updated: 2023-04-04 11:11 am PDT LGF User's Guide RSS Feeds

Help support Little Green Footballs!

Subscribe now for ad-free access!Register and sign in to a free LGF account before subscribing, and your ad-free access will be automatically enabled.

Donate with
PayPal Cash.app
Recent PagesClick to refresh
The Pandemic Cost 7 Million Lives, but Talks to Prevent a Repeat Stall In late 2021, as the world reeled from the arrival of the highly contagious omicron variant of the coronavirus, representatives of almost 200 countries met - some online, some in-person in Geneva - hoping to forestall a future worldwide ...
Cheechako
2 days ago
Views: 104 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 1
Texas County at Center of Border Fight Is Overwhelmed by Migrant Deaths EAGLE PASS, Tex. - The undertaker lighted a cigarette and held it between his latex-gloved fingers as he stood over the bloated body bag lying in the bed of his battered pickup truck. The woman had been fished out ...
Cheechako
2 weeks ago
Views: 270 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 1