More "Free Trade" Fail.

Joined
Aug 31, 2007
Messages
117,566
Blarg, blarg, blarg, global economy, blarg, blarg, blarg, globalized world, blarg, blarg, blarg, new world order.

What bullshit.

The whole "global economy" is tethered directly to the most tenuous of chains: petroleum.

Let there be some interruption in the flow of "just in time" logistical crude, and the whole house of cards comes crashing down, overnight.



Where are the Jobs? For Many Companies, Overseas

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/12/28/business/main7191280.shtml?tag=topnews

Corporate profits are up. Stock prices are up. So why isn't anyone hiring?

Actually, many American companies are just maybe not in your town. They're hiring overseas, where sales are surging and the pipeline of orders is fat.

More than half of the 15,000 people that Caterpillar Inc. has hired this year were outside the U.S. UPS is also hiring at a faster clip overseas. For both companies, sales in international markets are growing at least twice as fast as domestically.

The trend helps explain why unemployment remains high in the United States, edging up to 9.8 percent last month, even though companies are performing well: All but 4 percent of the top 500 U.S. corporations reported profits this year, and the stock market is close to its highest point since the 2008 financial meltdown.

But the jobs are going elsewhere. The Economic Policy Institute, a Washington think tank, says American companies have created 1.4 million jobs overseas this year, compared with less than 1 million in the U.S. The additional 1.4 million jobs would have lowered the U.S. unemployment rate to 8.9 percent, says Robert Scott, the institute's senior international economist.

"There's a huge difference between what is good for American companies versus what is good for the American economy," says Scott.

American jobs have been moving overseas for more than two decades. In recent years, though, those jobs have become more sophisticated think semiconductors and software, not toys and clothes.

And now many of the products being made overseas aren't coming back to the United States. Demand has grown dramatically this year in emerging markets like India, China and Brazil.

Meanwhile, consumer demand in the U.S. has been subdued. Despite a strong holiday shopping season, Americans are still spending 3 percent less than before the recession on essential items like clothing and more than 10 percent less on jewelry, furniture, electronics, and big appliances, according to MasterCard's SpendingPulse.

"Companies will go where there are fast-growing markets and big profits," says Jeffrey Sachs, globalization expert and economist at Columbia University. "What's changed is that companies today are getting top talent in emerging economies, and the U.S. has to really watch out."

With the future looking brighter overseas, companies are building there, too. Caterpillar, maker of the signature yellow bulldozers and tractors, has invested in three new plants in China in just the last two months to design and manufacture equipment. The decision is based on demand: Asia-Pacific sales soared 38 percent in the first nine months of the year, compared with 16 percent in the U.S. Caterpillar stock is up 65 percent this year.

"There is a shift in economic power that's going on and will continue. China just became the world's second-largest economy," says David Wyss, chief economist at Standard & Poor's, who notes that half of the revenue for companies in the S&P 500 in the last couple of years has come from outside the U.S.

Take the example of DuPont, which wowed the world in 1938 with nylon stockings. Known as one of the most innovative American companies of the 20th century, DuPont now sells less than a third of its products in the U.S. In the first nine months of this year, sales to the Asia-Pacific region grew 50 percent, triple the U.S. rate. Its stock is up 47 percent this year.

DuPont's work force reflects the shift in its growth: In a presentation on emerging markets, the company said its number of employees in the U.S. shrank by 9 percent between January 2005 and October 2009. In the same period, its work force grew 54 percent in the Asia-Pacific countries.

"We are a global player out to succeed in any geography where we participate in," says Thomas M. Connelly, chief innovation officer at DuPont. "We want our resources close to where our customers are, to tailor products to their needs."

While most of DuPont's research labs are still stateside, Connelly says he's impressed with the company's overseas talent. The company opened a large research facility in Hyderabad, India, in 2008.

A key factor behind this runaway international growth is the rise of the middle class in these emerging countries. By 2015, for the first time, the number of consumers in Asia's middle class will equal those in Europe and North America combined.

"All of the growth over the next 10 years is happening in Asia," says Homi Kharas, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institute and formerly the World Bank's chief economist for East Asia and the Pacific.

Coca-Cola CEO Muhtar Kent often points out that a billion consumers will enter the middle class during the coming decade, mostly in Africa, China and India. He is aggressively targeting those markets. Of Coke's 93,000 global employees, less than 13 percent were in the U.S. in 2009, down from 19 percent five years ago.

The company would not say how many new U.S. hires it has made in 2010. But its latest new investments are overseas, including $240 million for three bottling plants in Inner Mongolia as part of a three-year, $2 billion investment in China. The three plants will create 2,000 new jobs in the area. In September, Coca-Cola pledged $1 billion to the Philippines over five years.

The strategy isn't restricted to just the largest American companies. Entrepreneurs, whether in technology, retail or in manufacturing, today hire globally from the start.

Consider Vast.com, which powers the search engines of sites like Yahoo Travel and Aol Autos. The company was founded in 2005 with employees based in San Francisco and Serbia.

Harvard Business School Dean Nitin Nohria worries that the trend could be dangerous. In an article in the November issue of the Harvard Business Review, he says that if U.S. businesses keep prospering while Americans are struggling, business leaders will lose legitimacy in society. He exhorted business leaders to find a way to link growth with job creation at home.

Other economists, like Columbia University's Sachs, say multinational corporations have no choice, especially now that the quality of the global work force has improved. Sachs points out that the U.S. is falling in most global rankings for higher education while others are rising.

"We are not fulfilling the educational needs of our young people," says Sachs. "In a globalized world, there are serious consequences to that."
 
Articles like these bring me around more and more to Pat Buchanan's point-of-view on trade policy.

Unfortunately we'll never be a nation of 300 million astronauts. Unless we plan to subsidize everyone who'd be a widget-maker in the U.S. (and we're getting there), we need to get some jerbs back to the United States. Some would say "subsidize them using all the corporate profits coming in" but the profiteers will just take their whole operations out of the USA. And of course, creating a nation of dependents is pretty much as anti-American as could possibly be.

I don't know what the answer is. The more we grow the welfare state because it isn't hospitable to create jobs here as opposed to overseas, the further down the path we slide.
 
Articles like these bring me around more and more to Pat Buchanan's point-of-view on trade policy.

Unfortunately we'll never be a nation of 300 million astronauts. Unless we plan to subsidize everyone who'd be a widget-maker in the U.S. (and we're getting there), we need to get some jerbs back to the United States. Some would say "subsidize them using all the corporate profits coming in" but the profiteers will just take their whole operations out of the USA. And of course, creating a nation of dependents is pretty much as anti-American as could possibly be.

I don't know what the answer is. The more we grow the welfare state because it isn't hospitable to create jobs here as opposed to overseas, the further down the path we slide.

PJB has had it right on trade policy for years now. Still got a PJB for prez bumper sticker on one of my old trucks out in the woods.

Honestly, I don't think the answer is that difficult, although implementation will be a bitch.

Tariffs on everything coming into the country, combined with massive tax reform or elimination of taxes on business and profit, along with tort and regulatory reform or elimination.

Make it expensive to outsource, make it profitable to do domestically.
 
Here's a Cato@Liberty response to your AP opinion piece.

Many Americans believe the unemployment rate remains stubbornly high because U.S. multinational companies have been outsourcing and offshoring jobs to low-wage countries at the expense of jobs at home. And they believe this in part because politicians and the media tell them it’s so, even though it isn’t.

Consider this story today from the Associated Press under the provocative headline, “Where are the jobs? For many companies, overseas.”

Corporate profits are up. Stock prices are up. So why isn’t anyone hiring?

Actually, many American companies are–just maybe not in your town. They’re hiring overseas, where sales are surging and the pipeline of orders is fat.

More than half of the 15,000 people that Caterpillar Inc. has hired this year were outside the U.S. UPS is also hiring at a faster clip overseas. For both companies, sales in international markets are growing at least twice as fast as domestically.

The trend helps explain why unemployment remains high in the United States, edging up to 9.8 percent last month, even though companies are performing well: All but 4 percent of the top 500 U.S. corporations reported profits this year, and the stock market is close to its highest point since the 2008 financial meltdown.

But the jobs are going elsewhere. The Economic Policy Institute, a Washington think tank, says American companies have created 1.4 million jobs overseas this year, compared with less than 1 million in the U.S. The additional 1.4 million jobs would have lowered the U.S. unemployment rate to 8.9 percent, says Robert Scott, the institute’s senior international economist.

Where to start? First, look back at the reference to Caterpillar, the quintessential U.S. multinational company. If more than half of the employees the company has hired this year are outside the United States, doesn’t that imply that the company also hired workers within the United States, perhaps several thousand?

In fact, as I noted on p. 101 of my Cato book Mad about Trade, Caterpillar and other U.S. multinationals tend to hire workers at home when they are hiring workers abroad. When global business is good, employment tends to ramp up throughout a multinational company’s operations, whether in the United States or abroad. (Earlier this month the Dayton (Ohio) Daily News ran a story about Caterpillar hiring 600 new workers at a local distribution center.)

It is simply false to argue that, if U.S. multinationals did not add jobs to their operations abroad, those jobs would be created at home. The opposite is much closer to the truth. Over the past 30 years, the change in employment of U.S. multinationals in their U.S. parent operations and in their affiliates abroad has been positively and strongly correlated. When hiring grows abroad, it grows at home, and when it lags at home, it lags abroad.

And when U.S. companies do hire abroad, their aim is not typically to cut wage costs but to reach new customers (as I explained in an earlier op-ed). That’s why U.S. multinationals employ far more workers in high-wage Europe than in low-wage countries such as India and China. In fact, according to the most recent numbers from the U.S. Commerce Department, U.S. multinationals employed five times as many workers in Europe (4.82 million) in 2008 than they did in China (950,000).

If U.S. companies are forced to reduce their operations abroad in the name of fighting unemployment at home, they will be less able to compete in global markets and less able to expand production and employment in their domestic operations.

There is definitely some fail in this thread.
 
The reason our economy is in the shitter is because we don't make anything. Only a moron wouldn't understand that the whole 'easy credit' economy could not sustain itself. Let's all work at Starbucks and take out no money down adjustable rate loans to buy a $400,000 house in the middle of the fucking desert. Wanna take a vacation and help keep the economy going helping other people in low paying service jobs? Refinance! Hooray for prosperity!
 
The reason our economy is in the shitter is because we don't make anything. Only a moron wouldn't understand that the whole 'easy credit' economy could not sustain itself. Let's all work at Starbucks and take out no money down adjustable rate loans to buy a $400,000 house in the middle of the fucking desert. Wanna take a vacation and help keep the economy going helping other people in low paying service jobs? Refinance! Hooray for prosperity!

You have it backwards. "We don't make anything" because of easy credit and our economy is in the shitter because of easy credit bubbles. I put it in quotes because it is not true. We are still the largest manufacturer in the world and we are still are on a trend of increasing our industrial output (minus the recession's downturn). The fact that China is increasing its manufacturing base faster is neither surprising nor bad. Children do grow faster than adults. Right now we export worthless paper dollars. In exchange we get computers, clothes, toys etc. It's really quite a good deal for us and it's a shame it cannot last. When the dollar crashes we will be forced to manufacture more at home, and it will not be good for our quality of life.
 
Last edited:
The reason our economy is in the shitter is because we don't make anything. Only a moron wouldn't understand that the whole 'easy credit' economy could not sustain itself. Let's all work at Starbucks and take out no money down adjustable rate loans to buy a $400,000 house in the middle of the fucking desert. Wanna take a vacation and help keep the economy going helping other people in low paying service jobs? Refinance! Hooray for prosperity!

Agreed and inb4 the one worlders come in and call us the idiots.
 
You have it backwards. "We don't make anything" because of easy credit and our economy is in the shitter because of easy credit bubbles. I put it in quotes because it is not true. We are still the largest manufacturer in the world and we are still increasing our industrial output. The fact that China is increasing its manufacturing base faster is neither surprising nor bad. Children do grow faster than adults. Right now we export worthless paper dollars. In exchange we get computers, clothes, toys etc. It's really quite a good deal for us and it's a shame it cannot last. When the dollar crashes we will be forced to manufacture more at home, and it will not be good for our quality of life.

Well, besides the fact that "manufacturing" numbers have been fudged for the last twenty years or so, (grilling Big Macs is not "manufacturing") just like "unemployment" numbers, you're contradicting yourself here.
 
Well, besides the fact that "manufacturing" numbers have been fudged for the last twenty years or so, (grilling Big Macs is not "manufacturing") just like "unemployment" numbers, you're contradicting yourself here.

The industrial production (IP) index measures the real output of the manufacturing, mining, and electric and gas utilities industries; the reference period for the index is 2007. Manufacturing consists of those industries included in the North American Industry Classification System, or NAICS, definition of manufacturing plus those industries-logging and newspaper, periodical, book and directory publishing-that have traditionally been considered to be manufacturing and included in the industrial sector.

Can't seem to find evidence that Big Macs are included in this industrial production metric.

INDPRO_Max_630_378.png
 
Can't seem to find evidence that Big Macs are included in this industrial production metric.

Awesome, then all is right with the world and I'll go back to my corner with my tin foil hat.

But, then again, I'm not so sure I'd be too trusting of a statistic published by the Fed.
 
Kregisen said:
If consumers are saving 10 times the amount of the salaries of lost American jobs, why can't we tax 10% of the savings to consumers and pay the full salaries of the people who would be losing their job due to imports?

The end result is then, those people have a full salary and their full time, and consumers have savings.

How is this not a win-win?

Anti Federalist said:
I'll admit, I'm frankly, stumped by your question.

He admitted he's never taken an economics course in his life, and he admits here he's stumped when presented with a simple free-trade argument, and yet continues to spew this big-government regulating trade BS....that's what I'd call a "fail".

http://www.saddleback.edu/faculty/aorrison/mathhelp/sdtrade.htm

Go down to "First Try: A Teddy Tariff" if you don't want to read everything. It goes through step by step how when tariffs or quotas are enacted, consumers are hurt more than local producers are helped, and wealth is destroyed.

This is like arguing calculus before opening up a textbook. If other people on this site have never taken economics before, I don't want them buying into this bullshit that free trade and outsourcing is destroying america. It's such an easy topic to debate, but like the minimum wage argument, the sheeple let their emotions do their thinking for them.
 
Awesome, then all is right with the world and I'll go back to my corner with my tin foil hat.

But, then again, I'm not so sure I'd be too trusting of a statistic published by the Fed.

That tin foil hat you made could have been made in China for cheaper.
 
If other people on this site have never taken economics before, I don't want them buying into this bullshit that free trade and outsourcing is destroying america

They should at least consider what Ron Paul has to say...

RonPaul said:
http://www.ronpaul.com/on-the-issues/free-trade/

"Free trade with all and entangling alliances with none has always been the best policy in dealing with other countries on the world stage. This is the policy of friendship, freedom and non-interventionism and yet people wrongly attack this philosophy as isolationist. Nothing could be further from the truth. Isolationism is putting up protectionist trade barriers, starting trade wars imposing provocative sanctions and one day finding out we have no one left to buy our products." - Ron Paul

"The economic argument for free trade should be no more complex than the moral argument. Tariffs are taxes that penalize those who buy foreign goods.If taxes are low on imported goods, consumers benefit by being able to buy at the best price, thus saving money to buy additional goods and raise their standard of living. The competition stimulates domestic efforts and hopefully serves as an incentive to get onerous taxes and regulations reduced." - Ron Paul, March 2000

"There is another way. Free trade and free markets are, without a doubt, the best guarantor of peace. But this requires something all too few in Washington want: less government intervention." - Ron Paul, June 7, 1999

"Conflicting and inconsistent views on trade policy result largely from a lack of understanding of basic economic principles. Free trade is not a zero-sum game where some countries benefit and others inevitably suffer. On the contrary, true free trade by definition benefits both parties." - Ron Paul, Feb 12, 2001

"Free trade is the process of free people engaging in market activity without government interference such as tariffs or managed-trade agreements. In a true free market, individuals and companies do business voluntarily, which means they believe they will be better off as a result of a transaction. Tariffs, taxes, and duties upset the balance, because governments add costs to the calculation which make doing business less attractive. Similarly, so-called managed trade agreements like WTO favor certain business interests and trading nations over others, which reduces the mutual benefit inherent in true free trade." - Ron Paul
 
yet continues to spew this big-government regulating trade BS....that's what I'd call a "fail".

The Constitution calls for tariffs, not an income tax, to fund the government. Oh, and I have taken economics courses in college where I was taught the benefits of free trade. What wasn't covered was what happens when the majority of goods and services a country performs can be done cheaper overseas and that country is left with little to trade. Oh well, we still make the best movies. I guess we can keep trading those for $5 toasters.
 
That tin foil hat you made could have been made in China for cheaper.

Probably. But it is designed and used by Americans.

I design HRSGs. All I produce is calculations and blueprints. The vast majority of the steel and manufacturing is procured from Asia for delivery all over the world. There is nothing wrong with a strong US service sector. There is also nothing wrong with a strong US manufacturing sector. The key is to allow individuals to freely choose without intervention and manipulation.
 
Back
Top