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

[MyLibertyStuff]

Yeah, I remember the days when we used to care about the trade imbalance.

lol

 

[fj45lvr]

I do not think you know much about cars or economy for that matter and are trying to sugar coat the fact that some how magically you can make up for china's far lower labor costs.

it goes WAY deeper than merely "lower labor costs"....there are tons of costs added over here....various insurance costs, regulatory fees and regulation costs of all kinds, various taxes (not sure how much they pay over there may rival or exceed our rates).

 

[Met Income]

Tariffs don't help Americans, they just help the protected industry at the expense of the rest of Americans. It's not as if tariffs influence other countries' behavior - it just makes us all worse off.

 

[Anti Federalist]

"Protectionist" is a slur against people who favor a reciprocally beneficial trade policy not based on fiat currency. "Isolationist" is a slur against people who want a non-interventionist foreign policy.

This +1

But regulation and big government do not explain why we have trade deficits. Canada and Germany have much more regulation and government intervention in their economies than us, and we have trade deficits with both countries.

This +100

When socialist countries like France and Germany, and mercantilist countries like Japan, Korea and China, are purposefully targetting American industry and the American marketplace in order to capture and destroy -- this has nothing to do with trade. Trade implies mutual benefit. We don't have trade with China or Japan. We have those nations capturing our markets and industries while building up and protecting their own.

This +1000

If you know your history, the British Empire became the top mercantilist power in the world by using its navy and army to enforce trade monopolies. Once they reached the height of their power, the international bankers started promoting free trade, selling it as being a kind of beneficial idealism. The British opened their home market to all nations in exchange for political allegiance. They opened their market to American products, while we kept ours closed to them. American manufacturers devastated UK business and drove their manufacturing base into the ground. By the end of the 19th century, they could no longer compete with us economically, although they still had the world's pre-eminent navy which was funded by borrowing from us.

Now the bankers are in control over here and they are using free trade in the American market as a bribe to foreign nations that support their geo-political goals. Our economy is being hollowed out the same way the British economy was hollowed out at the end of the 19th century.

Both Bernanke and Geithner are big proponents of free trade. I hate those guys and all that they stand for. Free trade means a race to the bottom for the American people and that's the race these guys have us running in.

Ron Paul wants reciprocal trade agreements on a case by case basis, and not open borders. tmosely's views are more in line with McCain and the CFR than with Ron Paul.

And while we kept our markets closed, a recipe for total disaster according to the free trade acolytes, we became an economic powerhouse, creating wealth and innovations the likes of which had never been seen before.

 

[tmosley]

Buell and Victory motorcycles are what?

S and S, West Coast Choppers and hundreds of other "micromanufacturers" are what?

Figments of somebody's imagination?

I never heard of the first two. I wonder how well they would be doing if Harley had been allowed to fail? Harley dominates the market with motorcycles that aren't much improved in 60 years. That is a symptom of GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION. GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION IS NOT THE FREE MARKET. If you think it is, then you ought to apply for a position in Obama's cabinet.

Not to mention the fact that the tariffs on imported "heavy bikes" has long since expired, so you can buy whatever you want.

Right, so now foreign bikes dominate the market. If new, improved motorcycle companies had been able to take over the losers marketshare, most of the cycles sold in America WOULD BE AMERICAN. And that would be the case based on legitimate factors, ie PRICE AND QUALITY.

You seem overly perturbed the invisible hand is bitch slapping your argument.

You don't seem to be able to tell the difference between the free market and government intervention.

Harley re-tooled, re-worked their product line and marketed their products effectively, turning a huge profit, employing tens of thousands of skilled people, continued a product that has been around for over a hundred years and made themselves a global icon in the process.

You could have said the same thing for Chrysler ten years ago. Look where they are now.

I was never defending that.

Yes you were. By talking about the history of resistance, you attempted to falsely conflate self defense actions of the ancient unions with the aggressive, thuggish actions of current ones. Why would you bring it up otherwise?

Of course it would be, raising any taxes during a depression is suicide.

Then why aren't you debating with Big Moosey (moostraks) over there? He's the one that started this whole thing with his strawmen and communist ideology.

But ask yourself:

WHY do we rely entirely on imports? Is doing so a smart thing to do, when critical decisions of national integrity and self determination are taken away because of that fact?

I'm not saying its right or good, but American consumers benefit from cheap foreign goods. Even a five year old can see that.

We didn't always rely on imports, we did for ourselves, and we did it under a system of tariffs and import duties.

Right, but we would have been BETTER OFF with free trade. We can't do for ourselves due to GOVERNMENT REGULATIONS AND INCOME TAXES (not large font since you didn't try to say that our success was DUE to those tariffs, rather than in spite of them).

My nation's national integrity, independence and sovereignty, our own control of government and my freedom is worth more to me than a bunch of cheap shit at Wal-Marx.

Well, that's your opinion. The market disagrees with you, as Wal-Mart is doing quite well for itself. If we didn't have GOVERNMENT REGULATIONS AND INCOME TAXES, you would see lots of cheap AMERICAN shit there next to the cheap Chinese shit. The American stuff would probably be higher quality.

All of those are at risk if we continue to just be "consumers" and fail to become "citizens" once again.

Well, we could do that, if the government didn't take a third of our incomes, which is almost as much as the slave masters of the 1800's took from their slaves, and more than feudal lords took from their serfs. WE WOULD BE CITIZENS if it weren't for the income tax.

China's corporate and individual income tax rates are about the same as ours.



Same Japan

Right, and they have been in a depression for almost 20 years. Not the best example. Also, Citation needed.

And India.

Neither India nor China even have the infrastructure to keep track of their rural citizens, so those guys don't pay income tax at all. I seriously doubt they could be developing as fast as they are with a 30% income tax that people actually pay. Actually, I KNOW THEY CAN'T. Much like the US tax rate went up to 20% back in the 20's, NOBODY PAID IT because they allowed for so many deductions it didn't really matter. Only the super-wealthy actually had net outflows going to the government. I suspect it is the same in all three of those cases, as there is no payroll tax in any of those nations.

Now, imagine how fast they would be growing with absolutely no income taxes, even on the wealthy?

All of Europe's is much higher. Along with VAT taxes...

I see a European item MAYBE once a year on a store shelf. Those guys are floundering. Any success they have now is due to their free market past (ie they are spending down their surpluses from long, long ago). We get plenty of vehicles due to subsidies, but even subsidized, they are pretty expensive, and many of them are made in the US now anyways.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_rates_around_the_world

 

[tmosley]

I've read a lot of very intelligent and informed posts on here about trade.

tmoseley reacts angrily when he is challenged and writes in caps and resorts to namecalling. This is the same reaction the MSM has been having lately due to the rise in "protectionist" and "isolationist" sentiment around the world.

The only words that were large were "GOVERNMENT REGULATIONS AND INCOME TAXES" because no-one seemed able to get it though their thick heads that that is the primary factor that retards economic growth. In fact, you still don't get it. You're just crying because the words were too big.

"Protectionist" is a slur against people who favor a reciprocally beneficial trade policy not based on fiat currency. "Isolationist" is a slur against people who want a non-interventionist foreign policy.

No, "Protectionist" is a proper description of communist mercantilists like you. "Isolationist", in it's true meaning, means a "protectionist" who doesn't engage in diplomacy or trade.

Of course everyone here would love to see less regulation and limited government. That's a given. That's why we are here on this board after all.

Is it? I've seen an awful lot of people defending communist and controlled market ideologies in this thread (thus my Bizarro world comments above).

But regulation and big government do not explain why we have trade deficits. Canada and Germany have much more regulation and government intervention in their economies than us, and we have trade deficits with both countries. I have lived in Asia and I think there are far more regulations on business there -- not like ours mind you, but in arcane rules and practices that determine how business is run. Try being an American there doing business and it's one roadblock and payoff after another until you are broke. It doesn't matter if you have the best product at the lowest price. What matters is who you know and if you are of the right bloodline.

They are one major factor, the other being that we are the ones that turn worthless paper into something that they assign value to. They think dollars are worth something, so they accept them rather than a return of goods. That is why the goods we get are so cheap, we don't have to produce anything but paper or 1's and 0's to get them. Yes, India is certainly corrupt, that is one of the major factors that is keeping them from overtaking China.

The arguments for free trade generally boil down to namecalling because anyone who knows history quickly figures out that free trade leads to national decline and declining living standards.

Pfft. Citation needed.

When one nation opens its borders to economic competition from nations who keep their borders closed, you are going to hear "that sucking sound," as Ross Perot put it. When Clinton and Dole were telling us how NAFTA would be nothing but riches for us all, Perot saw the future most clearly, but we didn't listen.

Sure, but only when you have GOVERNMENT REGULATION AND INCOME TAXES.

When socialist countries like France and Germany, and mercantilist countries like Japan, Korea and China, are purposefully targetting American industry and the American marketplace in order to capture and destroy -- this has nothing to do with trade. Trade implies mutual benefit. We don't have trade with China or Japan. We have those nations capturing our markets and industries while building up and protecting their own.

Our industry wouldn't be vulnerable if it weren't for GOVERNMENT REGULATION AND INCOME TAXES.

If you know your history, the British Empire became the top mercantilist power in the world by using its navy and army to enforce trade monopolies. Once they reached the height of their power, the international bankers started promoting free trade, selling it as being a kind of beneficial idealism. The British opened their home market to all nations in exchange for political allegiance. They opened their market to American products, while we kept ours closed to them. American manufacturers devastated UK business and drove their manufacturing base into the ground. By the end of the 19th century, they could no longer compete with us economically, although they still had the world's pre-eminent navy which was funded by borrowing from us.

Take a basic economics course and get back to me. Free trade is what buoyed the British Empire, it didn't cause it's downfall. No nation ever fell because it was too free. If you think otherwise, then I would suggest you join the Democratic Party.

Now the bankers are in control over here and they are using free trade in the American market as a bribe to foreign nations that support their geo-political goals. Our economy is being hollowed out the same way the British economy was hollowed out at the end of the 19th century.

What do you think they are "bribing" them with? They are getting paid in dollars. It's the purchase of Manhattan all over again. The British economy was NEVER hollowed out. It simply couldn't maintain military supremacy in the face of a nation with freer markets (we were just passing out of the time of the freest market in US, if not world history), and in the face of growing resistance to their non-free market policies. Indeed, they tried to force their colonies to buy their goods AGAINST the dictates of free trade. Remember Ghandi's March to the Sea? You think that would have been necessary in a free market?

Both Bernanke and Geithner are big proponents of free trade. I hate those guys and all that they stand for. Free trade means a race to the bottom for the American people and that's the race these guys have us running in.

As is EVERY ECONOMIST ON THE PLANET EARTH. I guess Peter Schiff is just a globalist douchebag too? Jim Rogers MUST be on the dole of the NWO.

Ron Paul wants reciprocal trade agreements on a case by case basis, and not open borders. tmosely's views are more in line with McCain and the CFR than with Ron Paul.

HA! You think McCain would abandon farm subsidies, along with ALL OTHER SUBSIDIES AND TARIFFS? If so, then I should have voted for him, and you should've as well. Shut your fucking liehole.

Bossobass, moostraks, antifederalist, Hollywood -- all excellent posts.[/QUOTE]

Wow, so you like the Communist propaganda being espoused by Big Moosey? You really ought to head over to Obamaforums and join in the circlejerk. He's far more likely to instate the suicidal tariffs you want than Ron Paul is.

 

[tmosley]

And while we kept our markets closed, a recipe for total disaster according to the free trade acolytes, we became an economic powerhouse, creating wealth and innovations the likes of which had never been seen before.

FOR THE 1000th time: GOVERNMENT REGULATION AND INCOME TAXES.

 

[Anti Federalist]

I never heard of the first two. I wonder how well they would be doing if Harley had been allowed to fail? Harley dominates the market with motorcycles that aren't much improved in 60 years. That is a symptom of GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION. GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION IS NOT THE FREE MARKET. If you think it is, then you ought to apply for a position in Obama's cabinet.

If you never heard of the first two, then I suggest you are not much of a "motorcycle guy", and not really qualified to make flippant statements like "aren't much improved in 60 years".

I am. I've built a few custom bikes in my time, and know the engineering and business fairly well, which is why I can state, with some authority, that your statement is false.

Right, so now foreign bikes dominate the market. If new, improved motorcycle companies had been able to take over the losers marketshare, most of the cycles sold in America WOULD BE AMERICAN. And that would be the case based on legitimate factors, ie PRICE AND QUALITY.

Again, do your research before making spurious statements.

Of large motorcycles (the only type Harley makes) they have consistently held half the US market share.

http://www.wikinvest.com/stock/Harley-Davidson_(HOG)

You don't seem to be able to tell the difference between the free market and government intervention.

Nobody's breaking anybody's arm to buy a Harley, this isn't an East German Trabant.

You don't like them, and seemed overly pissed that anybody else does.

You could have said the same thing for Chrysler ten years ago. Look where they are now.

Harley never took a loan or "bail out money".

Yes you were. By talking about the history of resistance, you attempted to falsely conflate self defense actions of the ancient unions with the aggressive, thuggish actions of current ones. Why would you bring it up otherwise?

Because in the context of the discussion at the time, it had a ring to it that seemed to say that corporate actions were unassailable. Your remarks in that regard were caustic, to say the least, and unwarranted, IMO.

That's why I brought it up.

Then why aren't you debating with Big Moosey (moostraks) over there? He's the one that started this whole thing with his strawmen and communist ideology.

Because you were the one losing your mind and shouting.

I'm not saying its right or good, but American consumers benefit from cheap foreign goods. Even a five year old can see that.

And I'm saying that as long as we remain consumers, we will never be citizens.

And by not being citizens, we are losing our freedom, and that, my friend, is an undeniable fact.

Well, that's your opinion. The market disagrees with you, as Wal-Mart is doing quite well for itself. If we didn't have GOVERNMENT REGULATIONS AND INCOME TAXES, you would see lots of cheap AMERICAN shit there next to the cheap Chinese shit. The American stuff would probably be higher quality.

But the market disagrees with you in the case of Harley.

What, you think Wal Marx isn't in bed with government and lobbying them heavily?

That if they started to fail, they wouldn't be first in line for a hand out as well?

And it is my opinion, backed by history, and I stand by it without equivocation.

Well, we could do that, if the government didn't take a third of our incomes, which is almost as much as the slave masters of the 1800's took from their slaves, and more than feudal lords took from their serfs. WE WOULD BE CITIZENS if it weren't for the income tax.

You won't find an argument from me on this and it's a hell of a lot more than just 30% being extorted from us.

Add up all the fees, taxes, charges and "hidden taxation" and the figure is much higher, over 50% actually.

Right, and they have been in a depression for almost 20 years. Not the best example. Also, Citation needed.

I gave you the citation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_rates_around_the_world

A depression for 20 years and they are still kicking our asses economically.

I see a European item MAYBE once a year on a store shelf. Those guys are floundering. Any success they have now is due to their free market past (ie they are spending down their surpluses from long, long ago). We get plenty of vehicles due to subsidies, but even subsidized, they are pretty expensive, and many of them are made in the US now anyways.

We run trade deficits with Germany, Ireland, England and France (WTF?).

http://import-export.suite101.com/article.cfm/us_global_trade_debt_by_country

All are heavily taxed and regulated economies.

Something is wrong there, and your argument is not explaining what it is.

 

[tmosley]

If you never heard of the first two, then I suggest you are not much of a "motorcycle guy", and not really qualified to make flippant statements like "aren't much improved in 60 years".

I am. I've built a few custom bikes in my time, and know the engineering and business fairly well, which is why I can state, with some authority, that your statement is false.

If you say so, but you're an idiot, so I can't really trust anything you say.

Again, do your research before making spurious statements.

Of large motorcycles (the only type Harley makes) they have consistently held half the US market share.

http://www.wikinvest.com/stock/Harley-Davidson_(HOG)

A. What would their market share have been had they not been protected by tariffs (or rather BAILED OUT)?

B. What about the entire motorcycle market? I work near a college campus, and the only motorcycles I see are foreign.

Nobody's breaking anybody's arm to buy a Harley, this isn't an East German Trabant.

Yeah, the government is just bailing them out whenever they become unprofitable. THIS IS NOT AN ASPECT OF A FREE MARKET, YOU GOD DAMN MORON.

You don't like them, and seemed overly pissed that anybody else does.

I'm pissed because of government intervention, and your support of it. You and Hamilton and Lincoln can have a circle jerk in hell for all I care, as you are the one carrying on their legacy.

Harley never took a loan or "bail out money".

Right, we just taxed all their competitors until they couldn't compete any more. That's MUCH more fair.

Because in the context of the discussion at the time, it had a ring to it that seemed to say that corporate actions were unassailable. Your remarks in that regard were caustic, to say the least, and unwarranted, IMO.

That's why I brought it up.

In other words, you were defending them. Stop it, they don't deserve it.

Because you were the one losing your mind and shouting.

Look back at the conversation. There is only one thing that was shouted. I shout it from the rooftops in real life as well, because I try to speak the truth.

And I'm saying that as long as we remain consumers, we will never be citizens.

And by not being citizens, we are losing our freedom, and that, my friend, is an undeniable fact.

And what do you think is the cause of our decline from "citizens" into "consumers"? Hint, it isn't foreign competition. Other hint, think of what I've been shouting throughout this bloody thread.

But the market disagrees with you in the case of Harley.

No, it doesn't. The market wasn't given a say. All their competitors were muscled out by the government, remember?

What, you think Wal Marx isn't in bed with government and lobbying them heavily?

That if they started to fail, they wouldn't be first in line for a hand out as well?

And it is my opinion, backed by history, and I stand by it without equivocation.

Bullshit. Walmart never got subsidies, save for tax breaks from towns that wanted them to come in (they shouldn't be taxing businesses anyways). They clawed their way to the top through cost cutting and vicious negotiation, NEVER THOUGH FORCE, government based or otherwise. Prove me wrong.

You won't find an argument from me on this and it's a hell of a lot more than just 30% being extorted from us.

Add up all the fees, taxes, charges and "hidden taxation" and the figure is much higher, over 50% actually.

Correct. Thus, you can't really trust the numbers you posted.

I gave you the citation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_rates_around_the_world

A depression for 20 years and they are still kicking our asses economically.

Define "kicking our asses economically", then provide a citation. Also note that we drove out all of our heavy industry with what now? This time you say it. I'm getting hoarse.

We run trade deficits with Germany, Ireland, England and France (WTF?).

http://import-export.suite101.com/article.cfm/us_global_trade_debt_by_country

All are heavily taxed and regulated economies.

Something is wrong there, and your argument is not explaining what it is.

Ireland I can understand, as many corporations had relocated there over the last few years, though they are closing down or moving now, but the numbers don't reflect that yet. I would venture a guess that our military bases in their countries probably have something to do with it. I am not a scholar on European-American trade.

 

[moostraks]

Actually, I didn't read it. I assumed it was from the teens or twenties. In that case, blame TARIFFS, which destroyed the market for industrial goods abroad (ie due to trade wars, which you would replicate), and lead to spiraling government intervention. If you really wanted to prevent those conditions, you would *GASP* let the market work, both at home and abroad.



Bullshit. The Knights of Labor started 60 years before that.

As the economy gets better, working conditions get better (because people will shop around for better jobs). As the economy gets worse, so do working conditions. Unions prevent this, which is fine, but it puts the company in severe danger of collapse. Which has happened.

Tariffs aren't going to help, either. EVER.

Now, post some more sob stories. I'm getting pretty good at playing this tiny violin.

Hey dear...I was referring to UAW when I was talking about what those unions were born from. But since you want to be picky-choosey, I will go with your point in history...Knights of Labor:
" was one of the most important American labor organizations of the 19th century. Founded by nine Philadelphia tailors in 1869 and led by Uriah Stephens[1], its ideology may be described as producerist, demanding an end to child and convict labor, equal pay for women, a progressive income tax, and the cooperative employer-employee ownership of mines and factories. [2][3]"(emphasis mine)

from wiki :http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knights_of_Labor

The idea being that they organized to defend rights of labor and achieve a particular goal of those who associated. I am sure that the Kights of Labor were not the first labor union, as I would say the original idea came from ages past with pitchforks and torches. I have news for you, I believe in a free market of beliefs. I am not out to pick and choose which business ideas are legal. The repercussions of poor business ideas can be battled. This is how I view a union. As a business.

As for hating socialism, who are you to define in a free society who and how people may associate with one another? So are you going to ban the right to have communal living in your free society? Because there is more socialist ideas that are utilized in a commune then a union of laborers. You are just an aggressive individual who is no different than the current group of fascists, you just advocate for corporatism, which we already have, but you want it to be for whatever you happened to want to be involved with, which appears to be highly regulated (if I am reading your line of thinking....).

What regulations are you wanting dropped?I think you are going at this by dreaming big rather than working to pick at a weak spot and actually getting something achieved. I get you on the income tax issue. I don't disagree with you, but I think that we have to defeat the FED who sucks up those taxes and that is a whole 'nother ball of wax.

My fear is the disinegration of our manufacturing base due to corporatism while we are losing our national sovereignty which will lead to us descending quickly into the depths of dispair of previous generations. You will not have to be in manufacturing for this to affect you....

Once we lose the capacity to create we will be at the mercy of the global governance they are insistant upon invoking. Stop making this an issue about one inconsequential factor, labor unions, who are fairly insignifigant in the scheme of things. There is way more behind what we lost our manufacturing base for and we have to work within the mindset of the current society, not what we neccesarily want as our ideal.

Unions were emboldened based upon utilizing the emotions of those involved to spur them on in battle to achieve a goal (Irregardless of whether you agree with that goal...FOCUS on my point here for a moment). We likewise need to realize the problems we face today must be brought forward to those we wish to enlighten in a manner that achieves an end towards freedom for all, but begins by reaching people at a level they can comprehend....

 

[moostraks]

Bullshit. Walmart never got subsidies, save for tax breaks from towns that wanted them to come in (they shouldn't be taxing businesses anyways). They clawed their way to the top through cost cutting and vicious negotiation, NEVER THOUGH FORCE, government based or otherwise. Prove me wrong.

I will get to you with this in a little while when I get some more time but a 2 second google came up with this:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/walmart/secrets/lobby.html

"In 1998, Wal-Mart hired its first lobbyist, retired Air Force Lt. Gen. Norm Lezy, and created a political action committee (PAC), called the Wal-Mart Stores Inc. PAC for Responsible Government. According to published news reports, in 1999, then-Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott met with Wal-Mart executives and urged them to increase the company's political profile. In six years, the company has grown from having no lobbying presence in Washington to employing six external lobbying firms (in addition to its internal operation), and becoming one of the top 20 PAC contributors to federal candidates in the 2004 election cycle. Donations to federal candidates have grown from $135,750 in 1998, to $1,606,000, as of Nov. 2, 2004. [See more on Wal-Mart's political donations from the Center for Responsive Politics.]

Wal-Mart says that it supports pro-business candidates and its political contributions on the national level overwhelmingly tilt Republican"

Never used force? As I recall you have been screaming about lobbyists, so what about this? Maybe later I will see if I can find a chart for you to find out how growth has changed since their first lobbyist?

 

[tmosley]

I will get to you with this in a little while when I get some more time but a 2 second google came up with this:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/walmart/secrets/lobby.html

"In 1998, Wal-Mart hired its first lobbyist, retired Air Force Lt. Gen. Norm Lezy, and created a political action committee (PAC), called the Wal-Mart Stores Inc. PAC for Responsible Government. According to published news reports, in 1999, then-Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott met with Wal-Mart executives and urged them to increase the company's political profile. In six years, the company has grown from having no lobbying presence in Washington to employing six external lobbying firms (in addition to its internal operation), and becoming one of the top 20 PAC contributors to federal candidates in the 2004 election cycle. Donations to federal candidates have grown from $135,750 in 1998, to $1,606,000, as of Nov. 2, 2004. [See more on Wal-Mart's political donations from the Center for Responsive Politics.]

Wal-Mart says that it supports pro-business candidates and its political contributions on the national level overwhelmingly tilt Republican"

Never used force? As I recall you have been screaming about lobbyists, so what about this? Maybe later I will see if I can find a chart for you to find out how growth has changed since their first lobbyist?

It seems to me like they grew like crazy LONG before that. If you would read Atlas Shrugged, you would understand what is going on in the world. You would also see what Union supremacy brings.

 

[Anti Federalist]

Tmosely wrote:

If you say so, but you're an idiot, so I can't really trust anything you say.

You said previously:

I never heard of the first two.

Meaning Buell and Victory motorcycles.

Your judgments on the efficiency and quality of the American made motorcycle market carry very little weight if you have no idea of the existence of those companies.

That's not the first time you have had a bunch of .50 caliber holes shot into your statements in this thread.

Don't come to a battle of wits unarmed.

Yeah, the government is just bailing them out whenever they become unprofitable. THIS IS NOT AN ASPECT OF A FREE MARKET, YOU GOD DAMN MORON.

Go fuck yourself.

Say that to my face, and I'd knock your fucking block off for you.

I'm done here, as far as I'm concerned, you have lost this argument, in spades.

 

[Bossobass]

Tariffs don't help Americans, they just help the protected industry at the expense of the rest of Americans. It's not as if tariffs influence other countries' behavior - it just makes us all worse off.

Tariffs don't protect industries.

It would be nice if posts like yours were backed up by... well, anything.

The bankers purchased control of American industrial might in the early 1900s.

Standard Oil purchased control of General Motors, Railroads, Coal and natural gas with the huge profits it generated after it squeezed out all competition in the oil refining business.

This was not accomplished through ingenuity and hard work. It was accomplished through funding by globalists and illegal acts. The anti-trust cases against SO, even though they were a sham, should be proof enough for even the slowest among us.

The same globalists captured 70% of the steel industry in America using the same playbook. Again, the anti-trust case against those actions is the evidence that something was rotten in Denmark.

When the laborers, who not only worked under astoundingly poor conditions, but they constantly improved the efficiency, productivity and output of the industries they slaved in for poverty wages, saw the incredible wealth pouring into a few hands, they moved to organize.

The Statue of Liberty was erected in 1886
The peak decade of immigration was 1890-1900
The industrial monopolies were taken over by bankers 1900-1920

The influx of immigrants was engineered to fill the factories with a melting pot of starving worker bees. My grandfather was one of them, although he came in the 20s. He lived in America until his death in 1962. He explained it to us when we were little kids.

"They told us over there, 'Go to America, where the streets are paved with gold!'. I was led to a boat and boarded it for the worst 3 weeks of my life. When the boat landed at Ellis Island, I could not read, speak or write English, so I signed papers with an 'X' and they spelled our last name for me. (to this day, the paternal side of my family doesn't know the correct spelling of our name. Two of my uncles spelled it slightly differently than the other four brothers, my dad included, which always confused me as a kid).

"They pinned a tag on my lapel and herded me onto a train. I had no idea where I was going. When the train stopped, I was herded onto a street car. When the street car stopped I was led to a row house on the river and told to dress for work, after which I was taken to the mill a few blocks away.

"When the giant steel door was raised, the heat hit you in the face. It looked like hell inside. I worked a 12 hour shift, 6 days a week. Sometimes they would tell me, 'Send a runner home for food, you're staying another 12 hour shift.'

"Yeah, streets paved with gold... I got no gold, I got the banana (he said, gesturing the masturbation stroke)."

There was no safety equipment, no health insurance, no unemployment insurance, no disability insurance, no recourse for wrongful dismissal, no nothing.

Soon thereafter came the depression. My grandfather never owned a car. He never owned a home. He worked until he was 60 and was fired because he couldn't physically do the hard labor any more, after which his sons cared for him and my grandmother.

My maternal grandfather's family came to America sooner. He was 2nd generation in the mills. He worked 47 years at the coke and chemical plant that US Steel bought in the 60s.

He did 2 tours in WWII, ending in the Battle of the Bulge. He never spoke about the war, even to his wife or my mother. When he died, the local VFW showed up at his funeral and filled his coffin with awards and medals. They told my shocked mother that he instructed the VFW to keep them until his death, at which time they were to place them in his coffin. They gave him a 21 gun salute at the cemetery.

When the banksters moved to completely decouple gold from the dollar and tie it to oil in 1971, they had already long before begun the move into Asia. By this time, labor had won it's battles to get a bigger piece of the pie. Management, through the 70s, was instructed to settle every strike in labor's favor as quickly as possible. "Give them whatever they want, just keep the production rolling."

Another shift also occurred in the 70s for white collar workers. My uncles and father-in-law and friends' parents and uncles had moved into white collar jobs. Since most of them had no degree, they literally began as clerks and worked their ways up the ladder to chief engineers of the various departments.

Suddenly, that process was halted and college grads were being hired into entry level management positions. The old school guys, having worked their ways up, new everything about the inner workings of the companies. The college grads, of course, knew none of that, but only what they were trained in school to know.

This fact made the new management 'dumber than a rock', according to the old school guys, who complained that they had a new boss who would promptly come into their offices and ask, "what the hell do I do with this (or that, or whatever)?".

How do I know this? I grew up there. The second generation, my dad and his brothers generation, had moved into the white collar jobs. I paid attention when they met every Sunday to visit their parents and traded stories.

The short of it was that they used these concessions and the press to demonize the unions, publicizing the absolutely insane work rules and pay hikes and pension and other benefits. It got to the point, coincidentally coinciding perfectly with their mass exodus to Asia, Eastern Europe, South America and Canada, where average non-union people in the Steel City would say, "Good for those bastards, they deserve it."

In the 80s, as soon as the exodus was completed, the bankers instructed management to send all of the quality control and tech engineers to India, China, etc., to teach the new work force everything they knew.

My father in law was one of them. He spent 15 years in India and China as a quality control engineer, struggling to get past the huge culture shock to teach his trade. His stories alone would make for a great documentary.

In steel, the major innovation was continuous casting mills. They eliminate 6 or 7 steps and produce a better product. I asked him why they built plants in India and China vs up fitting the existing plants here. He said that they looked at it and determined that it would cost a lot more than building the mill from scratch.

He mentions nothing about taxes and regulations. Initial cost was the driving force to build new plants.

I asked if Chinese mills had all of the state of the art safety equipment and he immediately said "Nooooooooooo way. Life means nothing in China. Lots of workers are killed. Many times the family rejoices because they get the pension. The company yells, 'Next!', and the worker is replaced."

This is just a tiny perspective from the steel industry. The same thing happened in the textiles, aluminum, furniture, electronics, automobile and tech industries, unionized or right to work notwithstanding.

The tech bubble and the housing bubble were simply a distraction to make the transition easier to accomplish. Transition to what? America is now largely a service industry economy with 70% of GDP made up of consumer spending.

"Free Trade" or not, please name an economy from all of history that sustained a 70% consumer economy?

Tariffs are gladly paid by anyone with half a brain for the privilege of selling your wares to the richest, spendingest market in the history of earth. Americans will buy anything that's sold by Madison Avenue and financed by artificial credit, and LOTS of it.

Reciprocity lowers or eliminates the tariffs for countries that have something to trade that we need or want while purchasing something they need or want from us.

Japan is the perfect example. They literally have to import all raw materials, so of course, they have lower or no tariffs against those imports. The products that they manufacture from those raw materials are protected domestically by the highest tariffs in the world. So, one has to wonder why "Free Trade" BS hasn't applied to the second largest economy in the world.

And, This is just cars. The electronics, fruit, grain and meat industries are even more lopsided.

But what we don't hear ought to pique your interest: Last year Japan imported a whopping 8,000 Fords. That's right, 8,000 Fords were sold in Japan while Toyota sold two million automobiles here. Honda sold a million.

Why? Well, the average GM car in the US costs about $25,000, but in Japan the same car costs $50,000. A big mark up, plus tons of other obstacles and restrictions. No one calls that protectionism, but that is exactly what it is, and what it has been for years.

Peter Mandelson, the EU's external trade commissioner said last week that Japan was "the most closed developed market in the world and that imbalances. . . were truly staggering."

To be specific: The Japanese car market of 4.5 million vehicles begrudgingly allowed only 6 percent of their car market to be made up of non-Japanese manufactured vehicles. In South Korea the situation is even worse. It imported 9,000 US cars but sold 800,000 cars in ours. If you think a Kia outperforms a Malibu, you're not firing on all cylinders.

There are 30 electric car manufacturers that haven't had, nor will they ever have available capital to build anything in America. It's capital that drives industrial development... period. Regulations, wages and taxation are irrelevant where there is no capital.

Sadly, all of the great posts for all sides of the discussion aside, I believe this conversation is purely an historical one. The game is already over, and we're all just having a casual conversation at the wake.

Bosso

 

[moostraks]

It seems to me like they grew like crazy LONG before that. If you would read Atlas Shrugged, you would understand what is going on in the world. You would also see what Union supremacy brings.

You just ignore a response that points out the fallacy in your reasoning. You said Walmart never used force. You are wrong. Especially since your interpretation of force has been lobbyists.

They were growing but I think there might be an interesting correlation between their profits and expansion relative to their corruption with government.They were also originally selling american made products as their catch for getting customers. It is very difficult to find american made in their establishments now.

You are trying to muddy the waters. The unions are irrelevant to this specific statement. Are you going to blame the unions for Walmart importing so many foreign products??? LOL....

You need to read more than one book. You seem to predicate all your responses on one book and you are not very capable of seeing outside of the small solutions you have come to from this read. Especially since you feel entitled to berate anyone who disagrees with you viciously and feel entitled to decide what freedom really entails for the rest of us based upon your limited views.

So are you going to ban communes in your free society? How are you going to defeat people who want to embrace what you see as socialist associations? Will you refuse businesses the right to have boards of directors because it might lead to socialist tendencies? How far are you going to go in your free society to define people's choices? Or does fighting for freedom really mean you embrace the right of others to associate with like minded individuals as well as the right for the individual to be independant?

 

[tmosley]

Hey dear...I was referring to UAW when I was talking about what those unions were born from. But since you want to be picky-choosey, I will go with your point in history...Knights of Labor:
" was one of the most important American labor organizations of the 19th century. Founded by nine Philadelphia tailors in 1869 and led by Uriah Stephens[1], its ideology may be described as producerist, demanding an end to child and convict labor, equal pay for women, a progressive income tax, and the cooperative employer-employee ownership of mines and factories. [2][3]"(emphasis mine)

Right, so they were a) pro child starvation/prostitution (the alternatives to child labor before capital improvements allowed there to be a single breadwinner in a household), b)anti free market (wages are set by the market--else you get either labor shortages or require forced labor), c)pro-slavery (income tax is slavery), and d) for seizing the means of production. Yes. Very nice outlining of what is wrong with unions.

from wiki :http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knights_of_Labor

The idea being that they organized to defend rights of labor and achieve a particular goal of those who associated. I am sure that the Kights of Labor were not the first labor union, as I would say the original idea came from ages past with pitchforks and torches. I have news for you, I believe in a free market of beliefs. I am not out to pick and choose which business ideas are legal. The repercussions of poor business ideas can be battled. This is how I view a union. As a business.

I never said they had no right to exist. They have done good things in the past (standing up to small town fascism). But as they currently exist, they are the scum of the earth. Nothing more than thuggish brutes who demand more pay by force rather than merit, and have in fact helped to destroy our industrial sector, and driven it abroad BY YOUR OWN ADMISSION.

As for hating socialism, who are you to define in a free society who and how people may associate with one another?

I'm a free man who will not allow myself to be subjected the whims of scum like you. I'll defend my freedom with my life.

So are you going to ban the right to have communal living in your free society?

As long as it is non violent and non-coercive, I have no problem with it. Current unions do not meet those criteria (ie they block entrances to factories, sabotage machinery if things don't go their way, and assault replacement workers).

Because there is more socialist ideas that are utilized in a commune then a union of laborers.

Those communes are voluntary. Unions are often NOT voluntary, and they close the shops to those who don't participate in unions.

You are just an aggressive individual who is no different than the current group of fascists, you just advocate for corporatism, which we already have, but you want it to be for whatever you happened to want to be involved with, which appears to be highly regulated (if I am reading your line of thinking....).

You are an idiot. You want to merge union and government power, steal the ownership of the corporation, and then merge that with the government, and I'M the fascist?

Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice, and complacency in the face of tyranny is no virtue.

What regulations are you wanting dropped?I think you are going at this by dreaming big rather than working to pick at a weak spot and actually getting something achieved. I get you on the income tax issue. I don't disagree with you, but I think that we have to defeat the FED who sucks up those taxes and that is a whole 'nother ball of wax.

All safety and worker protections for a start. In fact, anything that the government says the company has to do should no longer be enforced at the barrel of a gun. They can suggest it if they want, but companies should be free to choose.

My fear is the disinegration of our manufacturing base due to corporatism while we are losing our national sovereignty which will lead to us descending quickly into the depths of dispair of previous generations. You will not have to be in manufacturing for this to affect you....

What previous generations? I think I'd take ANY of them over what we have now. Again, they made their bed, now they have to lie in it.

Once we lose the capacity to create we will be at the mercy of the global governance they are insistant upon invoking.

So you'd rather be at the mercy of OUR government? That is what is happening, since the Unions and the government are starting to seize corporations. Free trade does NOT imply global governance by any stretch of the imagination. A worldwide system of tariffs on the other hand, DOES.

Stop making this an issue about one inconsequential factor, labor unions, who are fairly insignifigant in the scheme of things. There is way more behind what we lost our manufacturing base for and we have to work within the mindset of the current society, not what we neccesarily want as our ideal.

I'll stop making an issue of labor when you stop crying out for protectionist tariffs. Remember that the first protectionist tariffs in this nation were called for by Rothchild goon Alexander Hamilton, and were maintained by Lincoln, who really started our decent into fascism.

Unions were emboldened based upon utilizing the emotions of those involved to spur them on in battle to achieve a goal (Irregardless of whether you agree with that goal...FOCUS on my point here for a moment). We likewise need to realize the problems we face today must be brought forward to those we wish to enlighten in a manner that achieves an end towards freedom for all, but begins by reaching people at a level they can comprehend....

You can't have freedom AND force people to raise your pay with the threat of violence, the two are not compatible. Violence is the fundamental weapon of your unions. Striking is fine, so long as you don't hinder your replacements from doing their jobs. But you do. You picket, and you spit on those who cross the picket lines, and attack them. You make backroom deals against your own people. You ally yourselves with scum like the mafia. You can lay in filth, just don't drag the rest of us down with you. But you are of course.

 

[moostraks]

Sadly, all of the great posts for all sides of the discussion aside, I believe this conversation is purely an historical one. The game is already over, and we're all just having a casual conversation at the wake.

Bosso

I think you might be right...I guess that is why I am so heartbroken, and frustrated with the continual mindset of so called "enlightened" folks who can't even come to a conclusion and instead argue over minutiae.

Your story from your family reads like so many from that era and anyone with some sense will look towards these writings to understand just where we came from and how things developed. We are kept distant from history so it can be used against us to effect a desired outcome. Those who understand it can learn from it. When it is constantly warped and changed we lose our capacity to reason and keep making the same mistakes.

Dh's family was also Ellis Island and we have the various spellings in his family as well. My family came over at Jamestown so I guess there were fewer people to screw our name up...

 

[Jace]

...

 

[KenInMontiMN]

If you don't end the income tax before the tariff, then you'll have both a tariff and an income tax. That's the way government works.

If you provide lots of government but don't present the citizenry with the tab in full, they'll line up for more govt, because it seems like a good deal to most. Charge them in full and then some to pay down their bloated tab, and suddenly you'll have a nation full of small-govt minded folks. That's the way human nature works.

 

[moostraks]

That's not the first time you have had a bunch of .50 caliber holes shot into your statements in this thread.

Don't come to a battle of wits unarmed.



Go fuck yourself.

Say that to my face, and I'd knock your fucking block off for you.

I'm done here, as far as I'm concerned, you have lost this argument, in spades.

Couldn't have said it better myself...