Nossir. I wouldn't go so far as to call it treason.... but it damn sure isn't patriotic.
I disagree. In the long run it can be patriotic. When our government many corporations out of existence, it's a matter of self preservation. We have the highest and most punitive corporate tax in the developed world.
No it isn't foolish for the reason that dismantling the manufacturing base erodes the middle class and those ruins the economy. The only damn thing it has done is made it such that the economy depends on the ability of the system to provide credit, which has led to the enormous amount of indebtedness of the U.S. today. It's totally stupid, brain dead, foolish, and myopic. Over and above that it is unsustainable, and did, in fact, contribute to the 2008 financial crisis.
News flash!
IF you are looking for a cause for the 2008 crisis, look at derivatives, not consumer credit.
No. What I am saying is that there should have been very high tariffs imposed on foreign cars FROM THE START. The problem with the U.S. auto business is a result of a combination of having to compete with foreign cars and the oil price shock. If tariffs had been imposed on foreign cars FROM THE START, the U.S. auto business would not have had the types of problems that it had.
Oh no! What happens when you outsource manufacturing jobs overseas is that you erode middle class purchasing power. To make up for it, the Federal Reserve devised cheap credit which facilitated a housing bubble, which in turn led to the huge derivatives market, of which mortgage back securities (MBS), were a part. The derivatives market then overheated, no one then knew exactly how much risk they were exposed to, investors panicked, and the system unraveled. If the Fed had not stepped in, and literally take TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS IN TOXIC MBS debt from the banks and put it on their books, the whole system would have fallen a part. Now, that's the truth.
News flash. Please see this post
http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls/221947-outsourcing-jobs-overseas-patriotic-18.html#post1064542069
That (bolded above) assertion requires documentation - perhaps a link would be in order. The nonsense about the oil price shock did not affect US autos any more than foreign autos. If you care to look, you will find that US autos tended to be high profit, low gas milage monsters which was a poor marketing decision - also you will find that the US auto industry had "no lay off" union contracts and ridiculous "lifetime" benefit packages costing billions simply to pay prior workers and their dependents to do nothing.
View attachment 67183340
UAW Workers Actually Cost the Big Three Automakers $70 an Hour
Boom! And the OP's logic is once again proven to be drastically wrong.
On Wednesday, G.M. chose to once again open its checkbook. For the first time since emerging from bankruptcy in 2009, when it received a $49 billion bailout from taxpayers, G.M. gave its 48,000 union workers a bonus greater than their contract called for.
Each worker will receive up to a record $9,000 in profit-sharing, even though the company’s actual profits were diminished by the cost of more than 80 recalls and warranted a payment that would be about $2,400 smaller.
wrong again!
The fed did not make up 'cheap credit'.
Back during the u.s. Invasion of iraq, when the u.s. Government issued its now-famous deck of playing cards featuring pictures of the 52 arch villains of the iraqi police state, saddam hussein's face adorned the ace of spades. If the barack obama administration wanted to engage in a similar public relations campaign – this time with a focus on the u.s. Real estate crisis – that top card should be reserved for former federal reserve chairman alan greenspan.
In a speech before the national association of realtors last tuesday, sir alan "the-bubble-blower" greenspan claimed that his low-interest-rate policies in the early and middle years of this decade had no effect on mortgage rates or real estate prices. As a result, he claims no responsibility for the subprime mortgage crisis. But even current treasury secretary timothy f. Geithner – who shared interest-rate-policy responsibility as governor of the new york fed during the greenspan regime – recently admitted that overly accommodative policy helped inflate the bubble. So what does greenspan know that everyone else doesn't?
Greenspan's primary defense is that mortgage rates were a function of long-term interest rates that were simply not responding to the movement in short-term rates, which he did control. While it is true that the flow of capital from foreign creditors with excess dollars did keep long rates low despite rising short rates, this "conundrum" was not the leading factor in the housing bubble. Although rates on 30-year-fixed-rate mortgages are based on long-term bonds, by 2005 such loans had become an endangered species. The housing bubble was all about adjustable-rate mortgages (arms) with teaser rates of one to seven years – which are primarily based on the benchmark fed funds.
The rock-bottom teaser rates, permitted by the 1.0% fed funds rate, were the primary reason that many homebuyers were able to qualify for mortgages they couldn't otherwise afford – which, in turn, enabled them to bid u.s. Home prices up to "bubble" levels. By pushing down the cost of short-term money, the u.s. Central bank enabled homebuyers to make big bets on rising real estate prices. Without the fed's help, few borrowers would have "qualified" for these risky mortgages and real estate prices never would have been bid up so high.
Greenspan expresses exasperation now, as he did then, that his careful nudging of interest rates higher by quarter-point increments did not translate into corresponding increases in long-term rates. Unfortunately, according to greenspan, the markets would not cooperate with his wise guidance, and to his dismay, mortgage rates fell despite his best efforts.
As they say in texas, that dog just won't hunt. If the "measured pace" of his quarter-point rate hikes were too slow to produce the desired effect, why didn't greenspan jack up the pressure? With interest rates far below the official inflation rate for so many years during the bubble, he certainly had plenty of room to maneuver. The claim that he was unhappy with the ultimate results of his rate hikes – despite his having done nothing to adjust that policy – is ridiculous.
In addition to his colossal errors on interest-rate policy, there were many other ways greenspan blew air into the real estate bubble. One example was what the market called the "greenspan put." by creating the perception in word and deed (that has since proven accurate) that the fed would backstop any major market or economic declines, lenders became more comfortable making risky loans.
In an often-quoted 2004 speech, greenspan went so far as to actively encourage the use of adjustable-rate mortgages and praised home-equity extractions for their role in contributing to economic growth. In fact, rather than criticizing homeowners for treating their houses like atm machines, he often praised the innovative ways in which such homeowners were "managing" their personal balance sheets.
In short, greenspan was as much a proponent of leverage for homeowners on main street as he was for bankers on wall street.
The bottom line is that greenspan fathered the housing bubble and now he refuses to acknowledge kinship with his wayward child. His denial of responsibility is an act of stunning bravado, and is a testament to his ability to turn even the simplest of situations into an impenetrable tangle of theories and statistics.
"the maestro" easily trumps the private sector jokers who now hold top dishonors in our pack of economic villains. The fact that greenspan still has any credibility shows just how little understanding the general public – including wall street and the media – actually has about this crisis.
Yep, but logic is tossed out the window when union benefits are being demanded. Even today GM continues to award unions even more than they deserve, after all, they can just get the taxpayer's to make it all better.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/05/business/gm-reports-2-8-billion-profit-in-2014.html
I don't recall the numbers, but the Japanese US auto makers had $3,000~4,000 per car advantage due to the union pension payouts several years ago.
There used to be huge deficits for US makers due to slower output and much longer die change times.
In spite of the unions, the US output has become more efficient over the last 5 years.
The 2008 crash even woke some of the morons up.
It can only be answered with a question:
How much more are you willing to pay for your gadgets to have them made in the US?
You can't have cheap **** and a higher minimum wage, income 'equality" etc.
Why would our standard of living crash?
If we stopped outsourcing as many jobs, then more people in the US would have jobs, which means we would produce more wealth right here in the USA.
Now maybe that would cause a few percent inflation, but like it or not, the Federal Reserve has determined that a few percent of inflation is stimulative to our economy and they strive to achieve such. So if we had a few percent of inflation due to cost push pressure, it would simply help to achieve the Feds goal, without the fed having to intervene by pumping more money into the system - so most likely there would be no additional inflation than what would have occurred without more jobs.
In the mean time, our wages would naturally tend to rise as employers have to compete harder and harder for workers, consumption increases as more people get jobs, production increases as businesses strive to meet demand, and the GDP increases. None of that is a bad thing, it's basically what happens when we have a strong economy.
You think that a strong economy = crash?
We now here calls that the U.S. must confront the rise of China. However, China's rise has been facilitated by the outsourcing of U.S. manufacturing to places like China, and selling those cheap goods to U.S. consumers. As such, is the outsourcing of jobs overseas patriotic?
As long as no U.S. laws are broken, who cares?
Nossir. I wouldn't go so far as to call it treason.... but it damn sure isn't patriotic.
Laws should reward corporations for creating American jobs. And punish corporations for outsourcing them.
How would a law award?
Well, I said reward, but I'll answer anyway. You can incentivize creating domestic jobs or outsourcing, depending on how laws are structured.
And where does the money come from to be substantial enough to motivate large multi-national corporations?
Is doing something that's harmful for the US economy unpatriotic?
We now here calls that the U.S. must confront the rise of China. However, China's rise has been facilitated by the outsourcing of U.S. manufacturing to places like China, and selling those cheap goods to U.S. consumers. As such, is the outsourcing of jobs overseas patriotic?
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?