MyFox
 

sarge-m's Blog

by sarge-m from Imlay City

Last Post 4 days, 3 hours Ago


Bush Losing 'Fast Track' Trade Powers By JIM ABRAMS (Associated Press Writer) From Associated Press June 29, 2007 7:35 PM EDT WASHINGTON - President Bush loses his power Saturday to seal "fast track" trade agreements without intervention from Congress, where Democrats blame recent deals for sending U.S. jobs abroad. Since 1975, only one other president, Bill Clinton, has been stripped of that trade promotion authority, designed to speed the reduction of trade barriers and open new markets with other countries. Bush won't get it back again, and the next president might not either. House Democratic leaders, including Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California and Rep. Charles Rangel of New York, whose Ways and Means Committee handles trade policy, said in a written statement Friday that their legislative priorities "do not include the renewal of fast track authority." "Before that debate can even begin, we must expand the benefits of globalization to all Americans," they said. In the Senate, Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, D-Mont., said he had other pressing trade issues, such as extending relief to trade-hit American workers. "I have always said that it is more important to get trade promotion authority done right than to get it done fast." Rather than promoting new free trade accords, the government should concentrate on rewriting old deals such as the North American Free Trade Agreement, going after countries such as China that manipulate their currencies, strengthening product safety and pushing anti-sweatshop legislation, said Sen. Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio. Nonetheless, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice urged Congress on Friday to renew Bush's trade promotion authority. Without it, she said, "America will lose an important diplomatic tool that has proven essential to bringing foreign leaders to the negotiating table and advancing our nation's broader foreign policy interests." Rangel got a similar pitch in a letter from U.S. Trade Representative Susan Schwab. "More than 100 bilateral trade negotiations are currently under way among our trading partners," she wrote. "It is important that the United States not sit on the sidelines as other countries lock in new preferential trading arrangements with our competitors." Democrats say they support expanded trade as long as it's fair to American workers and doesn't exploit developing countries. They complain that Bush pushed too many trade deals at the expense of worker rights and environmental protections. Fast track authority, which dates back to the Ford administration in 1975, gives the president the right to negotiate trade agreements that Congress can accept or reject, but cannot amend. Every president since then has enjoyed it, although the law lapsed between 1994 and 2002, when Democrats suspicious of trade agreements joined with Republicans hostile to the Clinton administration in opposing its renewal. The revival of the law in 2002 came only after Republicans agreed to Democratic demands to expand a program assisting U.S. workers hurt by foreign trade. The expiration of fast track won't affect four outstanding bilateral trade pacts that Congress must consider before they take effect. Negotiations with Peru and Colombia are finished, the United States and Panama signed a deal Thursday, and the free trade accord with South Korea is to be signed in Washington on Saturday, just before Bush's authority expires. U.S. and South Korean negotiators cleared their final hurdle Friday when the Koreans acceded to new U.S. guidelines demanded by Democratic lawmakers calling for stricter labor and environmental standards. Democrats reached a broad agreement with the Bush administration last month that worker rights and the environment will be core parts of future free trade agreements. That improved prospects for congressional action on several of the accords, although there are still sticking points, such as violence against labor leaders in Colombia and South Korea's restrictions on U.S. auto imports. The top Republican on the Ways and Means panel, Rep. Jim McCrery of Louisiana, noted that since Bush took office in 2001, the United States has implemented 10 free trade agreements with countries such as Australia, Bahrain, and Chile, and that the U.S. trade deficit with those countries has fallen by $7.3 billion. He and other Republicans warned that without fast track, countries leery of congressional tinkering won't come to the negotiating table. "We risk losing market share around the world," said Rep. Wally Herger, R-Calif. But Sen. Byron Dorgan, D-N.D., argued that "trade agreements have given us the largest trade deficits in human history." Last year the U.S. trade deficit reached $836 billion. --- On the Net: Congress: http://thomas.loc.gov/ Office of U.S. Trade Representative: http://www.ustr.gov/
105 Comments |  Add a Comment

Member Comments Total Comments: 105
Page 1 of 2
1
Last
sarge-m read my blog
Jun 30, 2007 | 8:18 AM

We are being sold out with this and immigration.

shockhazard read my blog view my photos
Jun 30, 2007 | 10:23 AM

We are allways being sold out . I think this is a way for the dems to knock down the stock market before election time .

Michigan_Man read my blog view my photos
Jun 30, 2007 | 10:44 AM

Do I still think Bush supports America? Yes. Free trade and capitalism are the backbone of the American economy.

colt19112 read my blog view my photos
Jun 30, 2007 | 11:23 AM

well we see what nafta did for us.... and on the immigration issue bush picked the wrong topic to push.... I will admit this to anyone... 2000 I worked had on his campaign. I worked with folks who came up from tx. Right atfer he was elected from jan till 911 he was siding with the democrats on every issue... those that attack on no child that was kennedy and mrs bush's work... 911 he showed he was strong.. got my support for the war on terror but has not got an ounce of it on domestic issues. 2004 I tried to work on his campaign I went in for 1 thats ONE day thats all i could give him of my time...

I think non terror histroy will be good to the man.. the rest he will be right up there with the great ones... wislon,hoover,carter and gw bush as some of americas worst!

Tim I fully understand what your thinking about free trade i thought the same way as you that it was good for this country. It is good for business but for the people not so good!

colt19112 read my blog view my photos
Jun 30, 2007 | 11:24 AM

one more thing sarge the entire govt is selling us out it is not a left or right thing!! its both of them..

sarge-m read my blog
Jun 30, 2007 | 11:34 AM

Colt, You are right. The problem is for the last years, there was no balance in Govt. Republicans could push through anything they want. Yes, Dems would not be any better, but if enough where in office, it would have kept the Republicans in check.

sarge-m read my blog
Jun 30, 2007 | 11:38 AM

Tim, I too used to think that way, but it has gone to far. They are driving wages down which is not good for the economy.

Free trade is a good thing if it is only really fair to all. Americans invent and improve things only to be given away to other countries. People invest money and time into education and make things work only to have those things taken away and now that education is useless.

Michigan_Man read my blog view my photos
Jun 30, 2007 | 11:40 AM

Indeed, NAFTA did do a great deal of good for this country. Combined with the Reagan tax cuts and deregulation free trade allowed this country to go into one of the longest periods of economic growth that was matched by the rise in per capita GDP and personal wealth. Of course Michigan did not fair too well because of NAFTA, but that was due to the concentration Michigan had on the auto industry as a result of union intervention in government policies regarding subsidies and trade. The American Auto Industry was already doing very poorly with our protectionist policies (evidenced by the need for a government bail out during the 1980's) which only served to protect inflated wages forced to be paid by unions.

As for Bush, I think Bush did fairly well on fulfilling his campaign promises. He promised to cut taxes across the board, he did. He promised increased military spending, it happened. He, whether we like it or not, promised to reach across the isle and include Democrats in policy making, that is what he was doing. 9/11 happened and he showed true leadership.

Free trade is essential to this nation. How would you feel if the government banned Walmart and Mejiers, what do you think would happen? Prices would go up because there are fewer companies therefore fewer competition. Do you think we should ban or high regulate trade from Ohio? Do you think "the people" would be better off if we did? Of course not. We have free trade among every State in the Union and we are the strongest, richest country in the world as a result of it. All free trade means i

Michigan_Man read my blog view my photos
Jun 30, 2007 | 11:40 AM

All free trade means is that we are taking that principle given to us by Adam Smith and expanding it to more countries creating more competition bringing in more resources and making life better for everyone.

The only thing that bothers me about our trade policy is that it has no rhyme or reason to it. I would like to see a system of benchmarks for determining our trading policies rather than the whims of a politician. This will allow us to expand economic progress to those nations which share in our fundamental beliefs and hedge against possible losses through higher tariffs against countries that do not practice democracy or capitalism which may "nationalize" our businesses if it pleases them, such as the case is in Venezuela right now.

Luvs1964 read my blog view my photos
Jun 30, 2007 | 12:09 PM

Ok MEN..the only thing u should be debating on is what to get me for my bday tommorrow, lmao..kidding...and Sarge no more 1864....lol and about this blog....still have NO idea who or if im voting at all for...Hope your haveing a GREAT weekend..Luvs

colt19112 read my blog view my photos
Jun 30, 2007 | 2:07 PM

tim dereg did more for growth of employment and wages then nafta will ever do.. Sorry to say ross paroit was right on the giant sucking sound.

Michigan_Man read my blog view my photos
Jun 30, 2007 | 3:16 PM

What evidence is there to back that up? The 1990's was one of the largest periods of economic growth in this country's history. Reductions in tariffs is deregulation, it is part of taking down barriers put up out of ignorance and xenophobia. Tariffs do for trade what taxes do for spending.

sarge-m read my blog
Jun 30, 2007 | 5:34 PM

Tim, If we deal with a country such as China. They allow slave labor. How can Americans compete with that? These policies are driving down the wages of all auto makers. I am a skilled trades man and I always made less than the auto workers, but should I be paid the same as someone with no skill? That is what is happening.

colt19112 read my blog view my photos
Jun 30, 2007 | 5:43 PM

Tim will never get it. I agreed with the dereg it was great for many things for example the phone company but nafta has had a huge negitive effect on this nation and its employment.. I know tim you are going to offer the business side on this issue yet again. I will say it is great for the corps but for the american worker it is killing us. How can we purchase products when either you are out of work or you cannot afford them due to a cut in income?

SmittyLongsleeves read my blog
Jun 30, 2007 | 6:14 PM

All I know is our trade deficit is getting bigger and bigger by the day due to jobs leaving America. We import more than we export. NAFTA has not been good for America at all.

SmittyLongsleeves read my blog
Jun 30, 2007 | 6:20 PM

I would love to see Wal Mart banned. They are driving wages down, one of the motivators for jobs going overseas as manufacturers look to produce cheaper goods, which as a result causes losses of American jobs.

SmittyLongsleeves read my blog
Jun 30, 2007 | 6:26 PM

All politicians are in the pockets of these corporations. Democrats and Republicans both are being bought out to protect the transnational corporations that are trying to make the most profit by finding the cheapest source of labor to achieve the most wealth.

SmittyLongsleeves read my blog
Jun 30, 2007 | 6:27 PM

Clinton started it with NAFTA and Bush continues it.

justbecause read my blog view my photos
Jun 30, 2007 | 6:36 PM

i shop walmart. does that make me a bad person?

Michigan_Man read my blog view my photos
Jun 30, 2007 | 6:37 PM

Sarge,

Why would we need to compete with Chinese low wages? With lower wages comes lower prices which means we spend less on those products so we have more to spend on other products. The decrease in the prices of products is an increase in our purchasing power and thus a de facto raise in our standard of living. No country has ever collapsed because their prices were too low.

Slaves are kept slaves by denying them education. If their population lacks education then they can never create high tech products or other products which require education therefore they will be entirely dependent upon us for those products. Those industries are higher wage industries and it would be in our country's best interest to specialize in high education and therefore high salary jobs, would we not? Do you honestly think that we should be competing with China over making shirts and shoes?

The bottom line is that trade is not a zero sum game, they benefit and we benefit. There was a time in our country when people had low wage BS jobs working in sweat shops making next to nothing. As our industries developed and demand grew for the products we produced it tightened the labor markets and forced wages up. Increased wages allowed us to increase our standard of living. China is seeing the same thing in their country right now. Their wages are going up and their standard of living is going up, and so is ours. The US economy grew approximately 30% from 2003 to 2006. That growth in our economy, just the growth, is equal to the entire Chinese economy and their economy nearl

Michigan_Man read my blog view my photos
Jun 30, 2007 | 6:38 PM

The US economy grew approximately 30% from 2003 to 2006. That growth in our economy, just the growth, is equal to the entire Chinese economy and their economy nearly doubled as a result of trade.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/b/b3/Prc1952-2
005gdp.gif
(Scatter graph of the People's Republic of China's GDP between years 1952 to 2005, based on publicly available nominal GDP data published by the People's Republic of China and compiled by Hitotsubashi University (Japan) and confirmed by economic indicator statistics from the World Bank.)


As of 2005 over 70% of their economy was in the private sector.


http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/05_34/b394
8478.htm


"Tim will never get it" is a cop-out and an insult. I am an intelligent person and I take offense that you would suggest otherwise. I am more than capable of "getting it" but the reality is that I have pointed to several facts and presented a solid economic theory, one which you have yet to rebut. Please offer me a counterpoint so that I may better understand your argument.

Michigan_Man read my blog view my photos
Jun 30, 2007 | 6:46 PM

No justbecause, it makes you a good person. Walmart is the single largest employer in the United States and provides countless goods at a price low enough to allow millions of poor people to afford them when they otherwise wouldn't be able to. Walmart has generated billions of dollars in tax revenue as well as billions of dollars in profit, profit which goes to shareholder and as you know approximately 80% of Americans own stock in one way or another, many if not most of them as a part of their retirement. Walmart does more to alleviate poverty then any government agency.

My point was not Walmart, which carries with it a not unique stigma which brands it as "evil." What if the only companies allowed in Michigan were those based in Michigan? Would there not be dramatically less competition? Would you not be forced to pay higher prices? Would the higher prices not reduce the products purchased at that store? Would that store then in turn have to lower wages in order to lower prices to try to break even? Yes they would. Class warfare and policies made out of anger rather than reason never help anyone, they only allow you to vent your anger at what you do not have or what you do not understand. I too shop at Walmart and will continue to shop at the store that offers the lowest prices.

colt19112 read my blog view my photos
Jun 30, 2007 | 9:08 PM

well tim who owns a great part of our public debet thats right china...

love how you bring smith life out of the text book and he was right, however nafta is sucking the money we have to purchase goods in services out of this country... The is only wealth created when you can take raw goods and turn them into a finished product.. you cannot rely on service to give a nation's economy growth.

Michigan_Man read my blog view my photos
Jun 30, 2007 | 10:01 PM

I've got that much, you think that NAFTA is draining money and resources out of the country. My question is why do you think that? Why can't you rely on service to give a nation economic growth, it works for Miami Beach. It works for Mackinaw. It works for Windsor and with the Casinos it works for Los Vegas. If service jobs could not add to economic growth then how does anyone have a service job? How do people complain about "jobs leaving the US for India?" Those are support jobs, service jobs that are created in India that allow for someone to be on the other end of the phone at 3:00 in the morning when your computer crashed from looking at all that pornography, I mean blogging, and you need technical support right then and there.

The fact is that the number of those with college degrees has risen, the middle class has risen, and GDP has risen in the United States since the passage of NAFTA.

Please tell me WHY exactly you feel that freedom is bad?

sarge-m read my blog
Jun 30, 2007 | 11:05 PM

Tim, I thought I said this before, maybe not.
People in this country where told, "Go to school and learn computers" People went in droves. These same people created what we have today, now the bugs are worked out and everything works well and Boom, There go the jobs.

It is not just shirts and shoes. Tooling is going to China. These companies get 1 qualified person to set up multiple machines and have a bunch of unskilled workers pushing the start button.

I have seen first hand the junk tooling these Chinese workers have put out.

As far as slavery goes, I think I said it before, Remember Tienaman square?

I have studied Soviet doctrine somewhat. This is exactly what they do to these people, educate them in only the ways to support Communisim and keep them uneducated. If you don't know any better, you won't want anymore.

These people are happy to get the little they get, they don't know any better, and if they did, they would be dead from revolt.

sarge-m read my blog
Jun 30, 2007 | 11:17 PM

Tim, All those "service jobs" in India are not just answering machine jobs. These are programming jobs too.

I have read your bio, and understand you are well educated. You spent a lot of time, energy and money to go to school. How would you like it if all jobs you are qualified for went to India and the ones left would only pay you $12 an hour? Companies are doing that very thing right now. Because they can get away with it. You would think, what good is this education. You would be pissed that you invested all that money for nothing. I know people like you with Masters degrees that can't even find a job. One I know is working at a Hungry Howies. This is what this "free trade" has done for us. Yes, free to others as we help them with our technology and expertise and then they use it against us.

Japan used American steel to build their zeros and you know what that got us.

Michigan_Man read my blog view my photos
Jun 30, 2007 | 11:39 PM

"They" is a cop-out, you want to make them into something alien, something that is not you when that is just not the case. They are you. They love freedom, they have freedom in their hearts just the same as you.

"This" is what free trade has done to ...us... here in Michigan where protectionism and unionism is paramount. Michigan is the only State in the country losing jobs and we are the heart of this country's xenophobia, we don't even trust people in neighboring cities (evidenced by distrust of school of choice). They are not using their technology against us, they are using it with us. The US economy has grown by more than the Chinese economy in actual wealth (China has had a faster rate of growth which is understandable since they used to be a third world country). The fact that they were a third world country when they shut everyone out because they were afraid of being corrupted should be evidence to you of what will happen here if we do the same. After WWII West Germany managed to restore itself to pre-war production levels in 10 years, a remarkable feat considering the whole country had been carpet bombed into rubble. How did they do it? Free trade.

We suffer in Michigan because we forced companies to pay extravagant union wages, we put up "Not Welcome" signs with high tariffs, and the result was the rise of the Japanese Auto Companies and the decline of the American Auto Companies (evidenced by the need for a bail out of American Auto Companies). All that protectionism and unionism led to decreased efficiency, decreased competitiveness, and a l

Michigan_Man read my blog view my photos
Jun 30, 2007 | 11:41 PM

All that protectionism and unionism led to decreased efficiency, decreased competitiveness, and a lower standard of living for anyone not a member of the auto unions. The tariffs came down, the union structure collapsed and everyone related to those pillagers saw a restoration to what they should be compensated while the rest of the country (and poor third world countries dying of starvation) saw a substantial rise in their standard of living.

Our current plight in Michigan is of our own doing. We need to allow freedom in this country in our relations to other countries because it improves the lives of all involved.

P.S. As for the Japanese, they attacked us after we shut down trade, that was their excuse for Pearl Harbor and remains their explanation to this day. Today, they are one of our biggest trading partners and not coincidently one of our biggest allies. Economic inter-reliance leads to political inter-reliance. Just look at our improved relations with China.

Michigan_Man read my blog view my photos
Jun 30, 2007 | 11:55 PM

No democracy has ever attacked another democracy. No country with a McDonald's has ever attacked another country with a McDonald's. Capitalism and democracy build peace and prosperity.

Look at China. These reforms started since 1978 has helped lift millions of people out of poverty, bringing the poverty rate down from 53% of population in 1981 to 8% by 2001.

http://econ.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/EXTDEC/EXTRES
EARCH/0,,contentMDK:20634060~pagePK:64165401~piPK:64165
026~theSitePK:469382,00.html

Ironically, the country that showed the highest level of support for the free enterprise system was China, with 74% agreeing that it is the best system. Others that were nearly as enthusiastic were the Philippines (73%), the US (71%), and India (70%).

http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/btgloba
lizationtradera/154.php?nid=&id=&pnt=154&lb=btgl


Statistics

Exports: $963.0 billion (2006)
Exports - commodities: machinery and equipment, plastics, optical and medical equipment, iron and steel
Exports - partners: US 21.0%, EU 18.1%, Hong Kong 17.0%, Japan 12.4%, ASEAN 7.2%, South Korea 4.7% (2004)

Imports: $795.0 billion (2006)
Imports - commodities: machinery and equipment, oil and mineral fuels, plastics, optical and medical equipment, organic chemicals, iron and steel
Imports - partners: Japan 16.8%, EU 12.4%, ASEAN 11.2%, South Korea 11.1%, US 7.9%, Russia 2.2% (2004)

sarge-m read my blog
Jun 30, 2007 | 11:55 PM

Tim, I agree somewhat. I didn't say we should not have some relations. I say the field should be level. Yes, I agree our relations are better. How can America compete with China when they don't have all the environmental concerns, work place safety and such. These things are neccessary and cost American companies a lot of money. American companies in China don't have to worry about that. I think it was in India, when an American company,"Union carbide" destroyed the environment and tons of people died and still are dying and sick and disabled from this contamination. No recourse for these people. What kind of relation is that? Mark my words, this will happen again in these free trade countries. It will take years, but it will happen.

sarge-m read my blog
Jul 1, 2007 | 12:01 AM

Look at the tainted pet food and I don't remember the other, but a food product that was contaminated. This is proof standards are lax. Just what American companies are looking for.

sarge-m read my blog
Jul 1, 2007 | 12:04 AM

As for Japan, If I remember right, we shut down trade with them because we knew they where building their forces up.

sarge-m read my blog
Jul 1, 2007 | 12:16 AM

As far as the relations to pillagers, I have been in the tooling industry for 18 years, It is an ongoing learning process. I work with tools that cost $100,000 a piece. One wrong move and it is no good. Why is my reduction in pay justified when I could go to Wal Mart and make a little less? It certainly would be less stressful. You have 2 Masters degrees, you couldn't do my job. Just because we don't have a masters in tooling doesn't make it a low wage job. It takes years of learning to do what I do, it is just on the job trainning. No difference. Yes, button pushers are different.
I have heard you say the union thing before and I have discussed this with you before. If you remember right, I did agree with some points, but it has gone to far.

Michigan_Man read my blog view my photos
Jul 1, 2007 | 9:17 AM

We don't need to compete because they are bound by the laws of economics, just the same as we are. Eventually China will begin to experience labor shortages just the same as the US as they did in 2005 and are continuing to experience today. Over a billion people, that may be how many people they have to produce things but that is also how many people they have to feed, how many people they may have to watch out for criminals in, that many people to provide medical care for, economic strength is relative. If they destroy their environment they will feel the consequences. They care about their environment, they are not heartless, eventually they will become more and more like American, in fact, they are already starting to suffer from heart disease, diabetes, cancer, immune and autoimmune disease, and all the other problems that come with an American diet.

Tainted pet food made the news, yes, but so did the Taco Bell Ecole episode. They make the news because they happen so rarely, not because they happen so often. A big episode like this, it causes companies to not associate themselves with that company anymore. The result is that company's sales go down, it's profits go down, and other companies with higher standards move in and take up that business resulting in a better product. That company will reform as well if not more to try to recapture that market. American products are filled with high fructose corn syrup, trans fats, and countless other pesticides. Do you think they are safer than Chinese products?

The Indian government is responsible for the I

Michigan_Man read my blog view my photos
Jul 1, 2007 | 9:17 AM

The Indian government is responsible for the Indian people. The Indian government is a democracy. The Indian people knew the risks that may be posed, they did nothing to prevent it, and it happened. Now they will learn that lesson, institute regulations, and raise costs there forcing them to be less competitive and thus making us more competitive. Our standards are not in place because we are more moral than the rest of the world, they are in place out of gradual realization of what needs to be in place (or in some cases just because liberals put them in place to usurp more power and they need to be abolished). We put them in place, so will they.

The standards were laxed, but regulations here are what drove companies over there which is what puts us in danger. We can either bury our heads in the sand with regulations and assume that nothing bad will happen to our economy or that businesses will go to countries like China and have dramatically inferior products or we can deregulate, open trade, and become more competitive. I want our country to be made up of the best of the best of the best, so I favor the later.

Ratt_Killer read my blog view my photos
Jul 1, 2007 | 9:32 AM

OK , I have to agree with Tim on just about everything he has written. I too have studied economics and understand the global impact. The problem with most Americans is that we view things so locally rather than the big picture of Global. I think that NAFTA was a step in the right direction but reeally should look at GFTA Global Free Trade Agreement.
Allow the free market enterprise to work.
PS I have a Masters also and have trouble finding work in my field. That is why I teach and continue to go to school to become educated in various fields to open up my opportunities.
If you are displaced because you thought that a company would "take care of you for life" and never received education or training in another field to diversify yourself, you are the fool. (not to anyone specifically).
Ratt

Michigan_Man read my blog view my photos
Jul 1, 2007 | 9:41 AM

Hey, 20 year old kids are in charge of precision movements in multi-million dollar nuclear subs and they get paid under $50,000 after you factor in all their benefits. With all due respect if you are as skilled as you say you are, that I couldn't do your job with two Masters Degrees, then why would you have anything to worry about? If a third world kid with no experience or education can do that job, then hey, how much skill is really required?

Is it justified that you get paid less if you go to a different company, why wouldn't it be? I am of the opinion that the amount you "deserve" to get paid at a job is whatever you are willing to work for. If there is someone else who can do the job as well as I can but they are willing to do it for less then they are more deserving of that job.

Gone too far? What would be the right point then? What is the tipping point? What point is far enough and we should go no further? Either you believe in freedom, or you don't.

Like I said, I know that free trades breeds prosperity and ties nations together therefore our trade policy should reflect that. We should replace our current system of tariffs with a policy that is designed to hedge against loss and promote our ties with those that share in our fundamental beliefs. As a country opens up its economy, regardless of how they feel about us or their tariffs against us, we reduce our tariffs against them. As a country opens up its government to democracy our tariffs against them should go down. A tariff method such as this would allow nations to see the benefits of fr

Michigan_Man read my blog view my photos
Jul 1, 2007 | 9:43 AM

A tariff method such as this would allow nations to see the benefits of free trade and gain an appreciation for our country as they become more free governmentally and economically. Likewise, it would also serve to increase tariffs against countries that move towards the ant heap of totalitarianism. As a country begins to close down its economy to the free markets our increased tariffs will encourage our businesses to decrease their investments in those countries and reduce our dependency on those countries. As a country begins to close down its government and adopt a less democratic government it should more easily seize our businesses therefore our tariffs would go up to hedge against that potential loss. In addition to hedging against loss and showing our discontent, a closed down economy with closed down trade will hurt that country's economy and they will realize that it is not in their best self interest to continue to close themselves down politically or economically. Free trade works therefore we should adopt a system which promotes it throughout the world for the sake of peace and prosperity.

sarge-m read my blog
Jul 1, 2007 | 9:53 AM

Tim, Yes I agree that China will learn eventually about the enviornmental impacts and they are bound by the rules of economics. American companies know the impact they have on the enviornment and go there to do it anyway. That is irresponsibility. Should we allow a generation to go by and ruin their lives untill they catch up? I say No.

Ratt, I know you aren't talking of me specifically, but I am diversified in my abilities. What good is it if there aren't any jobs out there? I think global free trade is good also along as all the rules apply to all.

sarge-m read my blog
Jul 1, 2007 | 10:10 AM

The problem Tim is the kid is just pushing a button and can't fix anything if it goes wrong and can't setup anything. They have someone do it for them. Tool work isn't about just loading a part in a CNC machine and pushing a button. To truely know the job you need to know how to do multiple things.

There are a lot of unemployed tradesmen out there created by this unfair competition and business know it so they take advantage of it and offer people substandard wages, people gotta eat, so they take it.

As far as 20 year old kids making precision movements, yes they do it but under the orders of superiors and only after proper trainning and along that line as they get better they are promoted and educated again. Along with that comes pay increases. American business wants to keep these button pushers at the bottom to keep them cheap.
What do you think the impact would be if we had to tool up for a long drug out war lets say 20 years from now and we don't have the manufacturing capability or the skill neccessary to build our defense back up? Is China going to build it for us? This is dangerous ground.

Michigan_Man read my blog view my photos
Jul 1, 2007 | 10:14 AM

It is irresponsible by our standards, but China does not share those views and frankly there is only one way to learn.

I'm not understanding your logic. First you are worried they are going to steal all of our jobs, now you say we shouldn't trade with them because you are worried about them? You condemn them to poverty and this nation to economic toil if you do not trade with them. There are 6.5 billion people on this Earth, 1.5 billion that live in China, you can't avoid them! Over a billion people live in India, you can't avoid them either. Together those two countries make up 1/3 of the world's population. What I think is sad though is that you trust our companies less than China. To be honest though, I doubt your true concerns about free trade are linked to your concern for possible environmental damage in communist China, I think your concern stems from this region's anti-globalization mentality that we all came up in perpetuated by the unions and public education and a general fear of change. Free trade adds jobs and ties our nations, and in this changing world the more allies the better.

There are no jobs because we live in Michigan, Michigan is in a one State recession right now and that is a result of our long standing protectionism through a combination of high tariffs and unionization.

Global free trade is good also along as all the rules apply to all? What rules? It is "free" trade, there are no rules, it is free.

sarge-m read my blog
Jul 1, 2007 | 10:19 AM

The scary part Tim and I mean no disrespect, You have the same way of thinking that my former boss had. He has no idea what our job entails and believes that you don't need tooling experience to run a tooling company.
Just because a man has an economics degree does not qualify him to run a tooling company. Back in the good old days when people where promoted within, like the Millitary" they knew the business and what the plants capabilities are. I am just reporting to you what I think I am observing through your comments.

Michigan_Man read my blog view my photos
Jul 1, 2007 | 10:24 AM

Your scare tactics don't wash. Countries that are tied economically do not go to war, they never have. No country with a McDonald's has ever attacked another country with a McDonald's and no democracy has ever attacked another democracy. Do you know what would happen in the case of war? They would have all that manufacturing power and no use for it. They would not be able to export any of it to us nor would they be able to import anything from us (the amount they import from us I have already posted). They import highly technical products from the United States and we import garbage from them.

Look at Detroit. It has all that manufacturing infrastructure, but it shut down trade and brought on unionization and what happened? All that infrastructure is rusting out and those booming factories are now abandoned and many I'm sure are filled with the homeless and drug dealers. It takes two to tango. All that infrastructure is irrelevant if there is no market for it. A lack of demand is just as dangerous as a lack of supply. A surplus of demand is just as dangerous as a surplus of supply.

Michigan_Man read my blog view my photos
Jul 1, 2007 | 10:31 AM

Your "observations" are a cop-out. Rather than addressing my argument you just try to dismiss me as a person and therefore dismiss everything I say without ever having to address my argument. In fact, you only serve to reinforce my argument. If you can't do the job without the experience, then businesses can't succeed in China because they lack the experience. If an expert with "button pushers," as you so arbitrarily refer to them, to assist them works more efficiently then a dozen experts pushing buttons then why shouldn't they be allowed to do so? It means a cheaper product and increased purchasing power for the average American, a good thing in my book.

SmittyLongsleeves read my blog
Jul 1, 2007 | 12:01 PM

I have been so busy with my son that I haven't really had a chance to read all these arguments. Wish I could throw something in, I will just say that I think Americans would benefit from a little more of an isolationist policy instead of being "bleeding hearts" for the the rest of the unemployed in the world. What jobs has India, China, or Japan sent here other than opening up a couple of autombile plants?

sarge-m read my blog
Jul 1, 2007 | 1:11 PM

No Tim, My concern is not so much the environmental thing. My concern is companies exploiting lax standards knowing full well the consequences on the environment and peoples jobs in America for the all mighty dollar and not giving a hoot.

Tim, would you kill someone in America? No, It is wrong.
Would you kill someone in China if it was legal? No, because it is wrong. This is what I am trying to say.

As far as war, I didn't say another Democracy would go against us, I meant another country. The reason why we where successful after Pearl Harbor was our ability to use our industrial capabilities to rebuild in a short manner of time. If we would not have done that, Japan would have landed in North America.

sarge-m read my blog
Jul 1, 2007 | 1:17 PM

Tim, You know me better than that. I would not dismiss you. As you well know from our last conversation on my other thread, I changed my mind when you put out a good case. I am flexible and have been wrong before and I will admit when I am wrong. I told you my observations because that is how I read it. It sounds as though you don't care what an American company does as long as they make money, even if they do something morally wrong like the environment or exploit cheap labor. Maybe I am wrong, but this is what I make out.

sarge-m read my blog
Jul 1, 2007 | 1:24 PM

By the way, I don't use scare tactics, I am just saying the way it is. Yes, I do agree somewhat with your economic reasoning. Look at the housing market, it is making a correction right now. People mortgaged these and now owe more than the house is worth. Yes, if lower prices are here across the board then yes we should make a correction in our wages. I think that is what is going on to put us on a level playing field with other countries, bringing the Americans wages down.

Ratt_Killer read my blog view my photos
Jul 1, 2007 | 5:23 PM

Sarge, what do you view as slave labor wages?
$1 an hour, $1 a day etc...
When Nike moved to Malysia they moved peolpe from outer villiages that were making next to nothing and provided them a place to stay and paid them what you would consider slave wages.
They considered it great pay and flocked for the jobs.It increased their standard of living and they and their families were not able to afford to live.
Nike initially had problems with culture and had to deal with different issues. They were employing what we consider "underage" and were beating someemployees for not working fast enough etc. These problems for the most part have been solved and the employees now live a much more fruitful life. In exchange we in America pay much lower prices for these products. If the shoes I am wearing were made in America with Union workers, I would expect to pay $200 rather than the $50 I paid for them. NO BETTER QUALITY.
Ratt

Michigan_Man read my blog view my photos
Jul 1, 2007 | 5:43 PM

Any economist will tell you that wage fluctuations in an economy are a natural part of any economy. Attempting to avoid any changes in wages will only lead to dragging down wages. What you are leaving out of your analysis is purchasing power. Decreased wages means decreased prices, decreased prices means increased purchasing power.

As for the trade deficit, the exchange rate for the dollar has been declining, the dollar has been becoming worth less and less internationally. The result of this situation is not a bad thing because a cheaper dollar means that it becomes easier for foreigners to buy our products. If it is easier for foreigners to buy our products then they will buy more and since our dollars are worth less we cannot buy as much of their currency (Euro's, Franks, etc.) which makes it harder for us to buy their products. The result is a shift of this country away from imports and towards exports allowing the trade deficit to correct itself and become a trade surplus. A trade deficit is just as dangerous to have as a trade surplus so pay no attention to those who complain about the trade deficit as though a trade surplus would be any better.

As for exploiting cheap labor, what would you suggest, businesses go into poverty ridden areas with no education, no resources, no experience and start paying people $20 an hour to clean tables? Go to those countries and ask those people if they feel they are being exploited, ask them if they would be happier if those jobs were not there. $2 a day may seem like exploitation to us but when you were making 50

Michigan_Man read my blog view my photos
Jul 1, 2007 | 5:43 PM

$2 a day may seem like exploitation to us but when you were making 50 cents a day it is quadrupling your salary. Every economy has to start somewhere and trade is never a zero sum game. They see an economic boom and we see a drop in the prices of our goods giving us more money to spend on other things therefore being a de facto raise. Freedom is the key to success for us and them. You cannot substitute the growth of a country. A Caveman cannot be given a gun and expected to use it wisely, he needs to learn and grow gradually and that is what trade does. It allows people to work their way up from a third world nation to a second world to a first world. Trade is good for them and for us.

sarge-m read my blog
Jul 2, 2007 | 6:09 PM

Tim, I agree with that. The problem is how it is done. If we where going to do that why not slowly? There are plenty of boomers getting ready to retire, we could have had a smoother transition. Remember, it isn't just auto makers suffering. I am non union and supply for auto industry, or used to. This was done so suddenly with no regard to workers and everyone lumped all of us into one "Lazy group"

We work hard for our money, and have a large responsibilty. We don't have someone looking over our shoulder, it is up to us. If we don't do our jobs, the paperwork will show.

I think the next post should lighten things up for all of us.

sarge-m read my blog
Jul 2, 2007 | 6:14 PM

Sorry, Can't get it to paste.

sarge-m read my blog
Jul 2, 2007 | 6:22 PM

Changed my Avatar to it.

Luvs1964 read my blog view my photos
Jul 3, 2007 | 9:37 AM

good sarge ya got it..I couldnt paste it...lol Love it..I have a good one too. Gonna take my ugly mug off, and put a new one up..hope ya like it..lmao

Michigan_Man read my blog view my photos
Jul 3, 2007 | 9:38 AM

The reason that factories here shut down so fast was not because more competition for labor opened up with trade agreements, it was because there was no competition, there was an absolute monopoly over labor by the unions in Michigan and you lost your non-union job because it supported union jobs. When they shut down, naturally so did your plant. Unions are still strong to this day in Michigan, over 20% of Michigan's work force (AFTER the collapse of the unions beginning in 1994) is unionized.

The problem is that instead of slowly changing over the years leading up to 1994 with NAFTA and GATT the unions in order to ensure they didn't lose their inflated salaries and benefits pressured the government to close down trade, to raise tariffs against foreign cars. The result, a steady decline in the quality of American Cars due to the complete lack of competition. They didn't compete because they didn't have to. Chrysler needed to be bailed out during the 1980's, all domestic cars made during the 1980's were garbage, but union wages continued to climb despite these poor products. Then, finally, people got tired with the garbage products that they were getting so we opened up trade and everything fell apart. Why did everything fall apart? Because inflated union wages and an absolute unwillingness of unions to compromise on wages to take wage decreases and benefit reforms caused the industry to evacuate Michigan. Many of those factories didn't even move to Mexico, they moved down South. It was a foolish man who built is house upon the sand, and that is precisely what

Michigan_Man read my blog view my photos
Jul 3, 2007 | 9:39 AM

It was a foolish man who built is house upon the sand, and that is precisely what the unions did with their activities driving up wages and shutting off trade.

As you see, too high wages are just as dangerous to an economy as too low wages.

sarge-m read my blog
Jul 3, 2007 | 6:13 PM

Tim, I get the over paid thing, but quality? I bought my GM truck brand new in 1998. I have 225,000 miles on it. I still drive it now and still trust it. Yes, regular maintenance has to be performed, but every vehicle needs that. This is why it lasted me so long. You couldn't drive any vehicle that long without maintenance. I know others that have vehicles in the 200's and are American vehicles. Yes, the 1980's vehicles where crap except near the end of the 80's. My wife had an 86 charger that had over 200,000 miles on it too. Yes, I agree, that people on an assembly line getting paid more than I is bad.