GM to import Chinese cars; trickle in 2011 will turn to flood in 2014

[Brian4Liberty]

Trotsky actually lived with Schiff in New York when the Federal Reserve system was being created.

Which Schiff? I believe the Schiff you are referring to is unrelated to Peter (or Irwin) Schiff .

 

[Jace]

...

 

[Jace]

...

 

[Anti Federalist]

According to the Wikipedia article you linked to, rapid industrialization in the United States occurred in the 19th century under a high tariff regime. This is when the United States became the world's largest economy with the highest standard of living.

The article states that free trade ideology became policy in this country with Woodrow Wilson and the advent of the Federal Reserve. It was under Wilson that the income tax replaced tariffs as the largest source of federal revenue -- spurring the rapid expansion of the federal government.

Paul Warburg, Jacob Schiff, Morgan, Rothschilds and other internationalist bankers were free traders and the driving force behind the creation of the Federal Reserve system. They were also supporters of Communism. Trotsky actually lived with Schiff in New York when the Federal Reserve system was being created.

I was reading that myself, and how the Republican party was the party of tariffs, and I've stated, repeatedly, the point that we became a mighty engine of industry, innovation and wealth creation under tariffs.

Tariffs are constitutional, they are the only taxes mentioned specifically in the constitution as a means of funding the fedgov.

"Free Trade" is a mislabeled creation of the globalist bankers, this fact is not disputable.

Free trade, of the variety practiced by the globalists, coupled with an insane taxation rate and regulatory burden will result in the destruction of the middle class and industry as a whole, it will lead to a loss of national sovereignty and freedom as well.

Actually, as somebody already mentioned in this thread, the damage has most likely been done already: we're sitting around in the ashes arguing about what the hell happened.

 

[sdczen]

This thread is starting to get annoying. I can see both sides of the argument here and it's nice to have the discussion. However, it seems that this is getting nowhere fast.

In a perfect world we would have a SOUND currency throughout the world. Once this was established 'free trade' would be possible. I'm talking about real free trade (i.e. no barriers, no tariffs, no taxes, no regulations for all parties). This would work to eliminate the money monopoly the central banks & governments have over the people. Throw in the removal of fractional reserves banking and the power then rests directly in the people's hands.

Hoping for a tariff under the current circumstances will do nothing for the American people. In fact it will further destroy the remaining amount of wealth we currently have. Some of the assumptions I've read here is if a tariff was implemented, then we could eliminate corporate & personal income taxes. Well, that'll never happen without anything short of a revolution. If a tariff is implemented now, it will just be added to the taxes we already pay. In a perfect world, it would be reversed, however, we are far from perfect.

Unfortunately, our manufacturing base is gone. It's not coming back anytime soon.

The first fundamental problem, is a system built on inflation/fiat/credit/debt. Costs always rise faster than technology & streamlined production can keep up with. It's the effects of inflation.

The second problem is Labor unions. Unions do not help individuals long term. It's a short term solution for conditions that have long since past. Not to mention Unions are nothing more than a miniature form of a Socialist governing body. The whole concept of unions was formed in the Socialist/Communist mindset. The individual is nothing, the collective is everything.

The third is constant government interference in the forms of regulation, taxation and subsidies. There really can't be enough said about this. This stifles creativity and ingenuity. Too many hurdles for a new and aspiring auto manufacturer to get a leg up. The amount of regulation and hurdles actually stifle new innovators from entering the market. Really, the only way for auto manufacturers to enter the market is to do what the Asian's have done. And they've outperformed the Big 3 for many years now.

The forth is discrepancies in wages between different countries throughout the world. It's true that you can pay someone in China much less than you can pay the same quality of worker here in the US. This will always exist in some form or fashion. With that said, it's very difficult to compete with this without US companies being malleable enough to change their business model in order to compete better. Ever increasing manufacturing costs, inflation, regulation and fixed union contracts will/and have killed the US automakers.

My fifth point: In our inflationary & mass consumer society we have grown too big for our britches, and we've grown at the expense of the rest of the world. Everything has been inflated so drastically in the last 15 years and there has been a paradigm shift in the mentality of Americans. We don't save anymore. We don't keep cars for more than 3 years. We don't keep our homes for more than 5. There is a new car in every driveway, along with a boat & multiple RV's. Just about everyone is maxed out on home equity loans and credit cards. It's all about keeping up with the latest & greatest. This is the middle class bubble that should have never been formed. And it's in the process of popping. Everything will come back to an equilibrium soon. Unfortunately it's going to be very painful for most of us.

The final point: The entire system is flawed, the government is flawed, the managed world economy is flawed, the banking & monetary system is flawed. We're over taxed and over regulated. We're over collectivized. We've lost our sense of liberty & self. Tweaking the system in it's current form is doomed to fail. It needs to be abolished and returned back to it's original form.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

This thread is starting to get annoying. I can see both sides of the argument here and it's nice to have the discussion. However, it seems that this is getting nowhere fast.

Of course. We have to nit-pick the fine differences between the Rothtards and the Paultards at least twice a month...

Not to mention Unions are nothing more than a miniature form of a Socialist governing body. The whole concept of unions was formed in the Socialist/Communist mindset. The individual is nothing, the collective is everything.

In addition, big corporations are nothing but Soviet style governing bodies.

The forth is discrepancies in wages between different countries throughout the world.

Now that is the heart of this thread. And the sometimes openly stated goal of the elite globalists has been to level that playing field, which means drastically reducing the standard of living and wages of Americans. They pushed the debt drug as a temporary sedative to further reduce the ability of the American frog to realize that he is being boiled.

The final point: The entire system is flawed, the government is flawed, the managed world economy is flawed, the banking & monetary system is flawed. We're over taxed and over regulated. We're over collectivized.

Yep.

 

[tmosley]

The United States built the greatest economy in the world under high tariffs that allowed us to develop from an agrarian society into the world's pre-eminent industrial power.

We also had no income tax and no government regulation of industry, a fact you constantly ignore, due to your "condition".

After the Korean War, the Japanese followed this economic strategy of import restriction while aggressively promoting exports -- although the Japanese government has followed economic interventionism much more so than the United States ever has. Their import restriction-export promotion economy led to explosive economic growth in the Post War Period when Japan's GDP grew to become the second highest in the world.

And where are they now? They have had a two decade depression and are now struggling under one of the highest debt burdens in the industrialized world. Their tariffs have done nothing for them but drive up domestic prices. Japan is the most expensive nation in the world to live in due to that very fact, which they make less per capita than those in the US, meaning they are actually quite a bit worse off than we are. Have you ever seen a Japanese residence? They're tiny, and they have very little in the way of consumer goods. A mellon costs ten dollars in season for Christ's sake!

Korea followed the Japanese economic model of import restriction and export promotion starting in the 1970s. In one generation, the Koreans went from a nation poorer than most sub-Saharan African countries into the 13th largest economy in the world with a per capita income higher than New Zealand.

And what do you think their regulatory environment is like? Again, their consumer prices are higher than ours. Their people are suffering because of the tariffs. It amounts to self imposed sanctions.

China is currently following the Asian Tiger economic model of import restriction and export promotion -- with heavy government economic interventionism -- and is achieving historic economic growth.

The Asian countries don't export to each other. They export to the American marketplace, which is open and not closed like their own. Their growth is funded by American finance from Wall Street banks that want the big returns from rapid economic expansion. The Asian countries also fund expansion with dollars captured from their huge trade surpluses with us.

You know, I wish I could find a store like China, where I could pay with a check and the never cash it.

Our establishment reacts angrily against anyone who points out that our free trade policy is a one way street, with our borders open to our competitors who keep their borders locked shut to us. While the financial class has benefitted greatly from this situation, the American middle class and working class have lost ground.

Gee, I wonder if that has anything to do with the progressive tax system and inflation? No, surely it must be those damned foreigners.

As industry after industry and profession after profession are lost to foreign expansionism into our economy, our welfare state expands to compensate for economic displacement, unemployment and declining living standards that cause rising social dysfunction (Detroit, Oakland, etc.). The Federal Reserve has compensated for the loss of our manufacturing base through the creation of credit bubbles to fuel consumption through debt -- causing brief periods of debt-based growth, which creates the illusion of prosperity.

Foreign "expansionism" into our economy has created more jobs for us. Your idea of raising trade barriers would do nothing but kill off the remainder of the middle class, and likely starve lots of poor people to death. You're a real humanitarian, you know.

The internationalist crowd clings to free trade ideology because it reduces American economic independence and makes us dependent on the international system.

OR they "cling" to it because it works demonstrably and is theoretically easy to understand. Indeed, only someone with your "ailment" or someone with Red in their eyes could fail to understand the simple logic.

Free trade would be great in a world without nation states where governments are not distorting markets. But we live in a world of nation states where governments use economic interventionism to gain competitive advantage (i.e. the Korean steel industry which is remarkably inefficient but has outcompeted the US steel industry through massive government subsidation). Economic interventionism causes malinvestment, where businesses in inefficient closed economies can drive efficient businesses in open economies into bankruptcy.

You mean the Korean people have generously provided us with steel below cost, while our own steel companies floundered due to crushing union demands, government regulations, and income taxes. It's just that your messed up brain flips things around and puts out gibberish. Yes, that must be it.

What we should promote in the United States is free enterprise within our borders and case-by-case trade agreements where trade is mutually beneficial to both nations. This is the trade policy of our founding fathers. Under this system we could end the income tax and reduce regulations within our own borders.

Who determines what trades are mutually beneficial? Government? How about individuals? You know, free trade. If other countries want to drive themselves into the ground to give us cheap goods and/or raw materials, who are you to stop them?

What we have now is a trade policy ruled by the Federal Reserve, which uses a fiat currency to give advantage to favored bankers at the expense of economic production within the United States.

Replace "United States" with "foreign countries with whom we have a negative trade balance" and "bankers" with "consumers" and you'd be right.

Free trade is the death of the free enterprise system in the United States.

That's the cancer talking. It's so sad when they get like that. Tell your family I'm sorry for their loss.

 

[Knighted]

The United States built the greatest economy in the world under high tariffs that allowed us to develop from an agrarian society into the world's pre-eminent industrial power.

The US built the greatest economy in the world when slavery was permitted.
Did slavery allow us to develop into the world's most powerful country?

The US built the greatest economy in the world during a period when immigration was at its peak.
Did wide open borders allow us to develop into the world's most powerful country?

The US built the greatest economy when women stayed at home and took care of the house and kids instead of working at a job.
Did housewives allow us to develop into the world's most powerful country?

Of course not! But these statements are similar to the argument you are presenting when you associate the economic success of the US and other countries with the implementation of high tariffs. Correlation does not mean causation, and there were many factors at work that were responsible for the US growing into a superpower. High tariffs may or may not be among those, but "guilt by association" does not confirm a thing. Just as you've chosen to attribute the success of a few countries with high tariffs to support your argument, other countries could just as easily be found throughout history (and in the present) that have high tariffs but floundering economies.

 

[Jace]

...

 

[Anti Federalist]

As far as housewives not working, they didn't have to work if they didn't want to up until the 1970s. My grandmother worked her way through college, but then stayed home once she got married. My grandfather gave my grandmother and dad a comfortable middle class living on one paycheck. But now with all the competition from abroad with free trade and mass immigration, it is harder and harder to get by on a single income. They say free trade lowers costs, and immigration leads to economic growth, but during my grandfather's time, wages were higher and the cost of living was lower. Although we pursued free trade after WWII, there were no imports from Japan or Europe at that time because we had leveled their economies by bombing them to dust. By the 1970s their economies were running at full speed and flooding us with imports, and that's when the dual income family became commonplace. And it was in 1965 that mass immigration was renewed as policy as well.

Government did a very good job at co-opting the "womens movement" to sell women on the idea that they must get out of the house and get a job, for the dual purposes of driving down wages and increasing tax confiscations.

Now that labor pool has been dried up, the next wave is illegal migrants to do the same thing.

 

[Knighted]

As far as housewives not working, they didn't have to work if they didn't want to up until the 1970s. My grandmother worked her way through college, but then stayed home once she got married. My grandfather gave my grandmother and dad a comfortable middle class living on one paycheck. But now with all the competition from abroad with free trade and mass immigration, it is harder and harder to get by on a single income.

Do you know of data that supports the claim that it has become harder to get by on a single income? Incomes have risen some since the 70's, even after inflation. Quality in goods has greatly improved. I'm familiar with the notion that it has become harder to make a living on a single income (have heard a number comment that in everyday life), but I haven't seen any evidence that supports it (other than that everyone's definition of "making a living" has dramatically changed in recent years to include big screen TV's, a new car every 2 years, and every new gadget that hits the market.)

But returning to the issue of tariffs, I have a side question to pose that involves this entire discussion. I don't know how familiar you are with manufacturing, but autonomy has replaced the need for human labor at an incredible pace. (Check out "How it's made" on the science channel. It really is amazing.) My question for you though is this: how would you feel if nearly every product produced in the US was able to be created with minimal or no human intervention? Virtually no one in the US would have manufacturing jobs then. But consumers would be able to purchase these products much more cheaply than they could have when human labor was involved. So I ask: do you think such a technological advancement would be beneficial to our society?

If your answer is yes, then it is but a small step to drawing parallels between that and our current situation where what you would call unfair trade (with low wage Chinese workers and tariff barriers) has supposedly put us at a disadavantage. We as US consumers pay far less for these goods from China even if we must endure slightly smaller salaries as a whole as a result of manufacturing jobs moving overseas. This is a consequence of comparative advantage, even if that advantage is due to low wage workers or unfair import tariffs rather than real advantage. Consumers benefit when those workers who can produce a particular good the most efficiently/cheaply are the ones doing so.

And if your answer is no, that it would not be beneficial, then you share a similar view with the agrarian farmers of the late 1800's/early 1900's who claimed replacement of workers by machines and technology would destroy jobs and bankrupt the nation. Yet there is no denying that if we were still using tens of millions of labor workers to plow our fields and plant our crops by hand, our country would more likely resemble a 3rd world country than what it is today.

 

[Anti Federalist]

Do you know of data that supports the claim that it has become harder to get by on a single income?

Taxation, as has been repeated here over and over again.

http://www.clearpictureonline.com/1960-US State Health.html

 

[moostraks]

Do you know of data that supports the claim that it has become harder to get by on a single income? Incomes have risen some since the 70's, even after inflation. Quality in goods has greatly improved. I'm familiar with the notion that it has become harder to make a living on a single income (have heard a number comment that in everyday life), but I haven't seen any evidence that supports it (other than that everyone's definition of "making a living" has dramatically changed in recent years to include big screen TV's, a new car every 2 years, and every new gadget that hits the market.)

But returning to the issue of tariffs, I have a side question to pose that involves this entire discussion. I don't know how familiar you are with manufacturing, but autonomy has replaced the need for human labor at an incredible pace. (Check out "How it's made" on the science channel. It really is amazing.) My question for you though is this: how would you feel if nearly every product produced in the US was able to be created with minimal or no human intervention? Virtually no one in the US would have manufacturing jobs then. But consumers would be able to purchase these products much more cheaply than they could have when human labor was involved. So I ask: do you think such a technological advancement would be beneficial to our society?

If your answer is yes, then it is but a small step to drawing parallels between that and our current situation where what you would call unfair trade (with low wage Chinese workers and tariff barriers) has supposedly put us at a disadavantage. We as US consumers pay far less for these goods from China even if we must endure slightly smaller salaries as a whole as a result of manufacturing jobs moving overseas. This is a consequence of comparative advantage, even if that advantage is due to low wage workers or unfair import tariffs rather than real advantage. Consumers benefit when those workers who can produce a particular good the most efficiently/cheaply are the ones doing so.

And if your answer is no, that it would not be beneficial, then you share a similar view with the agrarian farmers of the late 1800's/early 1900's who claimed replacement of workers by machines and technology would destroy jobs and bankrupt the nation. Yet there is no denying that if we were still using tens of millions of labor workers to plow our fields and plant our crops by hand, our country would more likely resemble a 3rd world country than what it is today.

As to wage disparity causing two income families, taking the example of autoworkers which were formerly paid $27/hr now down to $14/hr. Are you telling me that is not going to affect a household when all other items have inflated??? Then you add in the need for childcare when the parties are unable to find alternating shifts. Furthermore, many workers have lost not just a portion of their income but the entirety. This currently places a burden on the social services programs as people reconfigure their earning capacity placing a higher tax burden on the employed.

Automation has lessened the need for workers in one area causing an oversupply of workers in another area. The current displacement from industrial is causing the decrease in service industry wages as more industrial labor turns to this field as a new occupation.

The making of a third world nation is relevant to the wages and living conditions of the citizens. The established price of a product includes the price of production if a company is to remain viable. While a producer is lowering his cost of production he must continue to maintain a consumer capable of purchasing his goods. If the former laborer replaced by either lower wages or automation is the market for the product then it does not benefit the producer to decrease the price of his product if by the consumer being displaced he has no market.

The goal has been to find a new market while exploiting avenues to reap the highest profit. There is little forethought to the fact that the globe is finite and this is not sustainable till infinity. Meanwhile we are coming under a global totalitarian regime in order to remain competitive in this quest by a minority of people.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

Do you know of data that supports the claim that it has become harder to get by on a single income? Incomes have risen some since the 70's, even after inflation. Quality in goods has greatly improved. I'm familiar with the notion that it has become harder to make a living on a single income (have heard a number comment that in everyday life), but I haven't seen any evidence that supports it (other than that everyone's definition of "making a living" has dramatically changed in recent years to include big screen TV's, a new car every 2 years, and every new gadget that hits the market.)

Do you know of data that disputes that common "claim" that it takes two incomes to live? I live in suburban California, and it takes two incomes to purchase the average house. Seems pretty straight forward.

But returning to the issue of tariffs, I have a side question to pose that involves this entire discussion. I don't know how familiar you are with manufacturing, but autonomy has replaced the need for human labor at an incredible pace. (Check out "How it's made" on the science channel. It really is amazing.) My question for you though is this: how would you feel if nearly every product produced in the US was able to be created with minimal or no human intervention? Virtually no one in the US would have manufacturing jobs then. But consumers would be able to purchase these products much more cheaply than they could have when human labor was involved. So I ask: do you think such a technological advancement would be beneficial to our society?

Yes, automation is beneficial.

My biggest issue is with the importation of cheap labor. Automation does not live in a house, drive on a freeway, eat food, carry disease, create overcrowding, bring all it's relatives, hold prejudices against the existing population, and receive government entitlements and services.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

As far as housewives not working, they didn't have to work if they didn't want to up until the 1970s.

Great point. Putting housewives to work served the same purpose as the importation of cheap labor. It increased the labor pool and lowered wages. Once they had almost everyone working, the next option was to import foreign workers.

Boil the frogs slowly...

 

[Brian4Liberty]

If your answer is yes, then it is but a small step to drawing parallels between that and our current situation where what you would call unfair trade (with low wage Chinese workers and tariff barriers) has supposedly put us at a disadavantage. We as US consumers pay far less for these goods from China even if we must endure slightly smaller salaries as a whole as a result of manufacturing jobs moving overseas. This is a consequence of comparative advantage, even if that advantage is due to low wage workers or unfair import tariffs rather than real advantage. Consumers benefit when those workers who can produce a particular good the most efficiently/cheaply are the ones doing so.

You left out one huge issue. Domestic automation does not result in money leaving the US...

 

[Jace]

...

 

[akihabro]

I remember hearing of a Chinese built SUV that was going to be imported a few years ago. It failed the crash test horribly! I'm never buying a Chinese car. And what benefit to Americans will importing more foreign cars result in? More money for china to buy our bonds and no jobs for us.

 

[KenInMontiMN]

Great point. Putting housewives to work served the same purpose as the importation of cheap labor. It increased the labor pool and lowered wages. Once they had almost everyone working, the next option was to import foreign workers.

Boil the frogs slowly...

Putting both spouses to work also raised holy hell in the way of rush hour traffic congestion. Prior to the sixties, it was much less common for a couple to both have drivers licenses.

 

[Knighted]

Automation has lessened the need for workers in one area causing an oversupply of workers in another area. The current displacement from industrial is causing the decrease in service industry wages as more industrial labor turns to this field as a new occupation.

But the service sector has seen steady growth every decade while the industrial sector has seen a steady decline every decade, and that's not a recent phenomena - it's been happening since WWII. If there was a sudden large exodus from manufacturing, perhaps that could quickly depress service sector wages if workers fled to those industries, but that hasn't been the case. The decline in manufacturing jobs has been not sudden but very gradual, and significant growth in the service sector has largely offset the increased supply of workers.

Great point. Putting housewives to work served the same purpose as the importation of cheap labor. It increased the labor pool and lowered wages. Once they had almost everyone working, the next option was to import foreign workers.

I'm assuming when you refer to imported foreign workers, you are talking about immigration. In that case, much of the cheap labor you are referring to is largely a glut of unskilled workers, both in the case of when housewifes first entered the work place and in the case of many imported foreign workers. Unskilled workers do not compete for higher paying jobs, so a depression of high wages is unlikely. Now, it may be that immigration and the glut of unskilled workers has been the primary cause of income levels in the lowest quintile barely budging over the last few decades. But I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing that the most unskilled workers in America are still earning what they did a few decades ago. I see no reason that an unskilled worker emigrating from Mexico or another country should suddenly be lavished with enormous wages and benefits just because they stepped foot into this country. As long as strong income mobility and the opportunity for such a person to better themselves still exists, (and evidence seems to suggest that it does), I don't think it's quite as important to concern ourselves so deeply with comparisons between the richest/poorest quintiles in wealth distribution.