"Basic" supply and demand isn't the issue. It's much more complicated than that.
Your short-sightedness is truly alarming, if for no other reason that you're dressing up ignorance and masquerading it around as good sense.
You can either pay more for that car up front, but the premium you pay will go into your own economy and come back to help you in a multitude of ways, or you can pay less up front and wave good-bye to that money, as China and India have the good sense to enforce those economic protectionist policies you have so much contempt for. Those other countries don't care about your free market dogmas and they have the long-term good sense to keep the dollars we shell out to them.
It's just like Tucker has been saying more eloquently than I am able, the only way for the USA to remain competitive in the long term is to sacrifice a little short term pseudo-savings to keep money circulating in the economy. In the end it's actually costing us less to pay more for that car up front.
Yeah right :roll: Somehow I'm betting you're the type of guy who calls Obama a Marxist too. Neither of us are. You should probably read a little more about Marxism before you go making these kind of accusations. But hey, it's like I always say, why let facts get in the way of a good rant?
Spare me the libertarian balderdash, please.
Maybe the reason you "hear it all the time" is because it's true.
Even Alan Greenspan has abrogated his flawed ideology that deregulation helps the US economy.
What you're saying about economic protectionism being a failed policy was sound dogma about five years ago, my friend, but everybody with eyes to see have given up on your foolishness.
True believers in Adam Smith and Ayn Rand (read: koolaid drinkers) will probably never give up, even when reality smacks them in the face, but people with sense give up on failed ideologies after they, you know, fail on such a massive scale.
P.S. - I see you ignored several points I made. An obvious indication that you cannot rebut them.
The point is, if I understood Ryrinea correctly, is similar to the point I was trying to make with the original links I posted. You're living in a fantasyland, NYC, if you think all countries are going to trade freely and sing kumbaya.
China and other economies are implementing protectionist policies regardless of whether we think it is a good idea.
There are good ways to implement protective policies, and there are bad ways, as Ryrinea's the third link illustrates. But you asked who thinks protectionism is a good idea, and the answer is every country except the USA, apparently.
Funny, I seem to recall hearing that somewhere... Oh yeah, it's what I've been saying this entire time.
And I gave you the evidence. China is doing it, India is doing it, Europe is doing it, everybody is except the USA. Time to get with it here, buddy. Frankly, I don't want to play the quote game, because we can match each other quote for quote all day and get nowhere. Just use a little horse sense. It's better to keep money in our economy than give it to China. QED
Then start a white owned shop that sells hispanic goods and stop whining.
Most mexicans are legal. Also, knowing spanish helps one get hired there.
Ive heard thats likely false, also I dont know of any businesses that are not taxed.
The added cost of American labor would be passed onto consumers. I doubt you or anyone else is willing to pay a big premium for American-made merchandise.
$1,000 PS3 or $50 T-shirts anyone?
I don't have a big problem with immigrants that work and mind their own business, but I don't have a problem with profitable companies delivering a product or service at a good price either.
Populism and protectionism are surefire ways to kill an economy. They've never once worked for anyone, ever, yet you still advocate them and refer to free-market economics as "irrelevant dogma". I don't know how anyone could take you seriously.
If I am not mistaken the fire department is a forum of socialism, since it is government owned aka owned by the area which you live. This person is in his full right to talk about his beliefs about the democrats thought I do agree with Reddress that the people who torched the sign are not in their right to burn it, since it would be arson which is against the law, and they should be punished fully according to the laws of that state regarding arson's.
Facism is exactly what you're talking about. Corporations that are privately owned and government run. You sure as hell aren't talking about Capitalism.
That's not what I'm talking about at all. What I am talking about is a government that regulates privately owned corporations with the protection of its own citizens in mind.
And neither are you. At least, neither of us is talking about "pure" capitalism, and it is a gross misunderstanding of the second law of thermodynamics to assume that any such system of anarchocapitalism can exist outside a vacuum. What you're talking about are artificial market restrictions that favor multinational corporations and an elite few robber-barons. What I'm talking about is an artificial market that favors the people of the United States.
He should have just painted the first question: "Are you a producer or a parasite?" Everyone needs to look inside themselves to see how to answer this question. Are you in middle management, used car salesman, work in the financial district, or own a Pawn shop? Guess what? You don't produce anything tangible. You simply position yourself to make money from people by shuffling papers. You may provide a service. That's why you get paid, yet you don't produce anything. When I heard a few years back that America was going to become a nation of service providers I had a bad gut reaction. You can't shift the economic standing of a nation that far away from production and expect to get away with it.
Who said anything about lower prices without jobs? I'm saying we can have both.
Do you know how much more expensive a car would be if there was no outsourcing? Why do you think you can just ignore the massive premium that would come attached to purely American-made products?
As long as you're willing to pay much more for virtually everything you buy this shouldn't be a problem. And what gives you the right to restrict my economic choices?
You mean a 'benevolant fascism'... oh ok. Let's say Obama is the 'benevolant fascist' the one and only in the world. He's got an 8 year term max.... what about the next guy?
More like corporations outsourcing manufacturing jobs to India and China, which helps their bottom line at the expense of the American economy. So yes, it's sort of like sending money to Mexico, only on an exponentially greater scale. Not to mention those undocumented immigrants you speak so contemptuously of are contributing more to our economy than they are taking away.
Yes, I often wonder why a corporation would want to give up paying exorbinant union wages so those with retirement / investment portfolios may receive dividends.
No, those calling Obama a 'marxist' are confused... by strict definition of your statement that you described as good is the DEFINITION of fascism...:doh
So far in this thread people have called both myself and Obama "fascists" and "Marxists," apparently without recognizing the irony that neither of these terms are accurate for either of us.
While I don't agree with Obama about everything, I do admit that I am very closely aligned with him on a lot of issues. Let me repeat, neither I nor Obama are fascists, that is patently absurd, and I really can't let such an insult pass
(against me at least, say whatever you like about Obama, Lord knows I've called George W. Bush a fascist in my time). I wonder if you guys even know what fascism and marxism are?
And what are you talking about when you say "benevolent fascism?" There is no such thing.
These slurs have gotten to the point where they have no meaning at all, and people call any belief you oppose "fascism" or "marxism."
In reality, the sort of thing alms and NYC are advocating are much closer to fascism (though not identical to fascism) than anything I have said. "What you're talking about are artificial market restrictions that favor multinational corporations and an elite few robber-barons. What I'm talking about is an artificial market that favors the people of the United States." And when I say that I'm talking about the poor people of the United States. I'm talking about breaking the backs of the robber-barons to give the working people a fair chance.
I'm talking about equality for all people, which is precisely the opposite of fascism. What I'm talking about is egalitarianism.
:doh
So far in this thread people have called both myself and Obama "fascists" and "Marxists," apparently without recognizing the irony that neither of these terms are accurate for either of us. While I don't agree with Obama about everything, I do admit that I am very closely aligned with him on a lot of issues. Let me repeat, neither I nor Obama are fascists, that is patently absurd, and I really can't let such an insult pass (against me at least, say whatever you like about Obama, Lord knows I've called George W. Bush a fascist in my time).
I wonder if you guys even know what fascism and marxism are? And what are you talking about when you say "benevolent fascism?" There is no such thing. These slurs have gotten to the point where they have no meaning at all, and people call any belief you oppose "fascism" or "marxism."
In reality, the sort of thing alms and NYC are advocating are much closer to fascism (though not identical to fascism) than anything I have said.
Sarcasm is the last refuge of a failed argument. The issue is not why corporations would do this. It's obvious why they would do it, for the money, of course! This is precisely why we need to regulate them, because they follow a predictable pattern of using whatever means possible to increase their profits at the expense of ravaging the American economy.
Are you suggesting union demands have no bearing on the profitability / continuing viability of a corporation?
Please explain how pointing out that the vast majority of economists support free trade is "close to fascism." Weren't you just complaining about people who misuse words they don't understand?
:rofl
Please explain how pointing out that the vast majority of economists support free trade is "close to fascism." Weren't you just complaining about people who misuse words they don't understand?
What I'm suggesting is that the continuing viability of the American economy outweighs the continuing viability of multinational corporate robber-barons.
What I'm suggesting is that the continuing viability of the American economy outweighs the continuing viability of multinational corporate robber-barons.
I agree with your intention I disagree with your suggested means to that end.
All we need to do is NOT bail these companies out/.... if they collapse under their own weight, no ammount of cash injections can save it. Especially when it's companies dealing in the 100's of trillions of dollars of derivatives that are not worth the paper they're not printed on.
Also, shame on organizations like the SEC who should all be investigated at this point, for NOT enforcing the laws properly or equally... they should be criminally charged for negligence. The evidence to be gathered while investigation the big robber-barons / monopoly men crooks.
And when these "robber barrons" simply shrug, or move all aspects of production off shore, will the American economy remain viable?
Did you miss the part where I said, "Say whatever you like about Obama?" The only thing I'm criticizing is an inadequate understanding of the terms "marxism" and "fascism" that betray an ignorance (or in the case of BmanMcFly a very unusual interpretation) of political theory. I don't care what people say about Obama, even if they are wrong. I do care what they say about me, because I am neither a fascist nor a marxist and those terms have highly offensive implications. Sure, you're within your rights to call me a "marxist" or a "fascist," [and though I may not agree with what you say I will defend to the death your right to say it] just don't get your panties all in a wad when I call you out on your ignorance.So you criticize those who call Obama a Marxist while acknowledging that you made remarks that were equally foolish when Bush was in office?
To repeat, I said your beliefs are closer to fascism than mine. Not that your ideas are identical to fascism, just near to it.
Did you miss the part where I said, "Say whatever you like about Obama?" The only thing I'm criticizing in an inadequate understanding of the terms "marxism" and "fascism" that betray an ignorance (or in the case of BmanMcFly a very unusual interpretation) of political theory.
Would it be fair for me to say that your views are "much closer to Marxism"? Or would you consider that to be baseless namecalling?
And you demonstrated that same level of ignorance when you said Bush was a fascist.
But I still must vehemently disagree with your asserting that either Obama and I am somehow advocating fascism. Fascism is an evil ideology of racism, eugenics and ultranationalism, which neither Obama nor myself have ever advocated. I am certainly espousing a statist ideology, but I do not subscribe to the notion that statism and fascism are one and the same. Moreover, my own ideas regarding multinational corporations are decidedly left-wing, whereas fascist economic ideologies are decidedly right-wing. My ideas are certainly statist, and you might even consider them tyrannical, but this is not fascism, nor is it marxism for that matter. It is a left-wing economic pragmatism.
Whatever the word is, when you start mixing government with corporate the result is fascism.
I don't think Obama would EVER admit to being a fascist, but his actions are defining this for him at the moment.
Well they've already moved all aspects of production overseas, haven't they? What I'm saying is that when they do that they should be denied access to the American market. Make production in America was a requirement for access to the American market, and watch how fast those corporations move they production-- and the jobs they create-- back to this economy.
Look, alms, it's not that I can't rebut your arguments, I've done it several times over the course of the thread. But when you keep responding with the same arguments I've just rebutted, you can see how it might get tiresome. I'm not going round and round with you on the same subject again. Have a nice day.
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?