Boo Radley
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2009
- Messages
- 37,066
- Reaction score
- 7,028
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
And we continue to fight that, and we are doing so, But the trade should continue with push/pull benefits and responses.
We are making progress in these areas and it is not as quick as some would like. But it is a process and we have to understand that.
Yes, I agree with that. I am not in favor of tariffs unless it's in response to a specific tariff on the other side.
Canada does not compete with China, neither does Australia.Of course I did and I responded. Did you not read what I wrote??
Where did anyone claim China has the same standard of living? Canada can compete with China and does. No one here is complaining of trade with China, nor is Australia. In fact I don;t here it from anyone but Americans.
Canada does not compete with China, neither does Australia.
Canada and Australia are primarily resource based economies, that are doing well because of China's demand for resources. China does not have the as much domestic resources as it needs to supply its economy. In industries that Canada does compete with China, we are not doing so well. Hence the decline in manufacturing. In areas that we do not compete with China in we do ok. But Canada does have a trade deficit with China if I recall correctly (our resources tend to be exported to the US and not China) Australia I expect will have a trade surplus with China however
Canada does not compete with China, neither does Australia.
Canada and Australia are primarily resource based economies, that are doing well because of China's demand for resources. China does not have the as much domestic resources as it needs to supply its economy. In industries that Canada does compete with China, we are not doing so well. Hence the decline in manufacturing. In areas that we do not compete with China in we do ok. But Canada does have a trade deficit with China if I recall correctly (our resources tend to be exported to the US and not China) Australia I expect will have a trade surplus with China however
If you looked at the context of what the posts said you'd understand of how the word 'compete' was being used. Under your example we are therefore 'competing ' with Australia rather than China.
The point is that we can all 'compete' in this world using whatever resources are at hand be they 'natural' resources or 'human' resources. Those human resources might include manual or intellectual resources.
Nor do any conservatives, or many anyway, want to go to a UHC system in order to put our indsutry on a level playing field.
http://www.boston.com/business/articles/2011/07
/26/ge_moving_x_ray_business_to_china/
Ge who made 15 billion in profits and paid NO TAXS...so much for tax cuts create jobs....like I said...they create jobs in CHINA....
Maybe you should read slower. Let me repost:
Well, . . . we're competeing with China. Maybe you didn't know that. Canada has UHC. This is important.
However, you're still missing the point. We don't want to compete with them concerning WAGES. They pay much less.
Obviously he fully recognizes that fact when he says the their standard of living is much lower than the US. China has much lower income per capita than advanced economies. The only way for them to increase real wages is to continue its market liberalization and continue its trade liberalizations. It is these changes that have allowed chinas economy to rapidly grow over the course of modern history and has caused the standard of living in china to grow rapidly. Trade does not happen if it is not mutually beneficial. I don't understand how you can think it does. China does not just ship stuff over here and have it sit in boxes. People buy the stuff because there is an obvious cost advantage. Maybe it helps if you would realize that this is not just about money, but comes down to real things. We literally could not make all the things we have if we did not trade with china. It is impossible, these tradeoffs for production are represented by money. It costs more to make clothes in the US because we could be making more expensive aircraft parts instead. Because trade happens, it is mutually beneficial, and because it allows us to make more things, and it allows capital to flow to its most productive uses it net INCREASES REAL WAGES.
Yes, people buy it. But buying it does not increase wages here. We are not making more things today. At least not by actual employed workers. China is. Odds are you American Flag was made somewhere other than in America/
We are seeing more wealthy people, but also more poorer people, and less middle class. This gap is growing. So when we say it is beneficial, beneficial for whom? Just because people buy cheap **** doesn't mean they are benfitting in the long run. Small mom and pop shops were more expensive, but gave decent wealth to a larger number of people, and provided a better connection in the community, for example.
Yes, people buy it. But buying it does not increase wages here. We are not making more things today. At least not by actual employed workers. China is. Odds are you American Flag was made somewhere other than in America/
We are seeing more wealthy people, but also more poorer people, and less middle class. This gap is growing. So when we say it is beneficial, beneficial for whom? Just because people buy cheap **** doesn't mean they are benfitting in the long run. Small mom and pop shops were more expensive, but gave decent wealth to a larger number of people, and provided a better connection in the community, for example.
Small mom and pop stores being more expensive would give decent wealth to their small number of owners and employees and otherwise be a bad deal to everyone else. With some competition, consumers could choose the better store, providing more wealth for everyone else. Now everyone would have more money to spend on other things, which would mean that businesses other than the mom and pop store could thrive with this new found wealth.
Small mom and pop stores never paid a very high wage. I remember working for one and they were allowed to pay me less than minimum wage because of the number of people they employed.
People could simply get by on less then.
And instead of the local business man with much more money to spend, we have more and more low wage workers. Look around you. It has not worked as you suggest.
No, not really. As they were part of the community, a contributing part of the community, along with other contributing members, it was a pretty good deall all around. And no, customers don't alway choose the better store. Wlamart is not better than a lot of those stores that fell. Too often they choose the cheaper store. Cost over quality. And instead of the local business man with much more money to spend, we have more and more low wage workers. Look around you. It has not worked as you suggest.
I do look around but apparently do not see the same things as you. Income in the US has risen substantially over the years (with the exception of 2008). Even as the lower brackets have grown more slowly they are the ones that benefit most from cheaper goods. 10 years ago, how many people had a computer? a cell phone? a flat screen TV? Those are just a few examples. Obviously we are not getting worse off.
I do look around but apparently do not see the same things as you. Income in the US has risen substantially over the years (with the exception of 2008). Even as the lower brackets have grown more slowly they are the ones that benefit most from cheaper goods. 10 years ago, how many people had a computer? a cell phone? a flat screen TV? Those are just a few examples. Obviously we are not getting worse off.
Your standard is trinkets?
The rich, the poor and the growing gap between them
The rich are the big gainers in America's new prosperity
The political consensus, therefore, has sought to pursue economic growth rather than the redistribution of income, in keeping with John Kennedy's adage that “a rising tide lifts all boats.” The tide has been rising fast recently. Thanks to a jump in productivity growth after 1995, America's economy has outpaced other rich countries' for a decade. Its workers now produce over 30% more each hour they work than ten years ago. In the late 1990s everybody shared in this boom. Though incomes were rising fastest at the top, all workers' wages far outpaced inflation.
But after 2000 something changed. The pace of productivity growth has been rising again, but now it seems to be lifting fewer boats. After you adjust for inflation, the wages of the typical American worker—the one at the very middle of the income distribution—have risen less than 1% since 2000. In the previous five years, they rose over 6%. If you take into account the value of employee benefits, such as health care, the contrast is a little less stark. But, whatever the measure, it seems clear that only the most skilled workers have seen their pay packets swell much in the current economic expansion. The fruits of productivity gains have been skewed towards the highest earners, and towards companies, whose profits have reached record levels as a share of GDP.
I learned many years ago that you have such things and still be deadly poor. Visit a Native American Reservation in Montana. Visit the projects (I grew up in one). But, I will say your thinking is like that of a poor person, who tries to make up forhis position by finding away to have these things. Once $100 sneakers were status. Only to the very poor.
We could look at the number of home owners over the years. Maybe the number of cars owned by somebody? I am sure that has risen as well.
Inequality does not prove that people are worse off:
400-200 = 200
1000 - 201 = 799
201 > 200
The projects and Indian Reservations make up a very small portion of the US, but I would bet that they have even improved over the past 20-30 years of economic liberalization. Even if they have not, it is hard to despute for the broad majority, over 95%, our lives have been made better off, not worse off over the years.
Your standard is trinkets?
Once $100 sneakers were status. Only to the very poor.
BTW, I can intorduce you to people who have those things, but not runnig water, or indoor toliets, or adequate health care, or in some cases, enough food. Foolishly mistakeing one thing for the other is your error. It is more than possible to have those things, and still be poor, still be worse off.
BTW, I can intorduce (sic) you to people who have those things, but not runnig (sic) water, or indoor toliets(sic)
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?