'Trade is not a four-letter word'

Sep 29, 2011 By Jennifer Chu
Credit: UPS

While many Americans see today’s increasingly competitive global economy as contributing to the nation’s economic woes, UPS Chairman and CEO Scott Davis argued in a Tuesday talk at MIT that free trade ultimately benefits the U.S. economy and employment.

“One of the problems we have is not enough recognition in the population base and Congress that trade actually creates more jobs than we lose,” Davis said. “If we’re going to grow the and reduce unemployment, I think the biggest driver has got to be exports.”

Davis spoke to an audience of MIT students and faculty members, stressing the need for increased trade with international partners. He joined Yossi Sheffi, the Elissa Gray II Professor of Engineering Systems and director of the Center for Transportation and Logistics (CTL), in examining the role trade, infrastructure and logistics can play in boosting — or suppressing — the U.S. economy.

Davis is a member of President Barack Obama’s Export Council, an advisory panel that will examine ways to meet Obama’s goal of doubling the export of U.S. goods and services by 2015. In this capacity, Davis says part of his job is to educate the public that “trade is not a four-letter word.”

While U.S.-based multinational companies do a “fair” job of exporting products, Davis stressed the need to help small and medium-sized companies break into the export business. Davis pointed to recently signed free-trade agreements with South Korea, Colombia and Panama as opportunities for trade relationships and new jobs.

“[The agreement with] South Korea alone will create 70,000 new jobs,” Davis said.

Planes, trains and automobiles

Despite the promise trade may hold for new jobs, Davis says it will be impossible to meet the president’s export goals unless the government makes investments in improving the country’s infrastructure. Congested highways, crumbling bridges, outdated rail systems and inefficient air traffic control all have a direct effect on trade and U.S. competitiveness, according to Davis.

“If the average UPS truck in the United States gets delayed five minutes a day, it costs us $100 million a year,” Davis said. “And I guarantee you we get delayed every day due to congestion.”

He added that better infrastructure would lead not only to more efficient commerce, but also a smaller carbon footprint. For example, less congestion and more efficient air traffic controls would decrease the amount of idling for trucks and planes.

As a company, Davis said UPS has invested significantly in its own infrastructure, with fleets of new trucks and planes, as well as a “rolling laboratory” of alternative-fuel vehicles. The company is currently looking for ways to decrease its environmental footprint and increase fuel efficiency.

It’s a tricky problem for a company that essentially runs on fuel. However, Davis is optimistic, and plans to explore lower-impact options, such as rail and ship.

“We spent the last 20 years speeding the supply chain up for customers,” Davis said. “The next 20 years could very well be slowing the supply chain down, for the environment.”

More than a delivery truck

This may mean going back to the drawing board to come up with new shipping solutions — a very literal scenario for UPS. The company often generates new ideas via “whiteboarding,” a brainstorming process that UPS featured in a 2007 ad campaign. The commercials featured a lanky man, doodling on a whiteboard.

The doodles, drawn in brown marker, illustrated the company’s expanding shipping capabilities, from international delivery to package tracking and scheduled pickup.

“We seriously believe in the whiteboard ads,” Davis said. “We spend a lot of time with our customers at the whiteboards, doing the what-ifs, and sometimes you whiteboard all over the room, and that’s the way you think through these things.”

This kind of pie-in-the-sky thinking has driven the company in new, unexpected directions in the past few years, Davis said. In 2004, UPS announced an unusual partnership with Japanese electronics company Toshiba. In addition to shipping Toshiba laptops, UPS would also repair them. The unorthodox decision — what was a shipping company doing in the computer-repair business? — made a lot of business sense, according to Davis. Having repair facilities with parts and labor close to shipping centers sped up the repair process, delivering laptops back into customers’ hands faster.

In recent years, the company has become increasingly involved in the health care industry, shipping pharmaceuticals and medical supplies around the world. Davis said UPS is working with companies including Merck and Pfizer to set up shipping centers in places such as Africa, where there is a need for both therapies and a direct way to deliver them.

“We’re moving really sensitive stuff that needs to be temperature-controlled, and parts that are critical for surgeries, and people on the operating table need those at 8 a.m. the next day,” Davis said. “We’ve really broadened the business an awful lot.”


This story is republished courtesy of MIT News (web.mit.edu/newsoffice/), a popular site that covers news about MIT research, innovation and teaching.

Explore further: Economist outlines work on managing tasks and time

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Cultivating supply chain experts

May 05, 2011

When a supply chain is firing on all cylinders -- moving products, information and money on schedule -- it goes largely unnoticed, at least to the average consumer. You expect to find the supplies you need ...

Physicists grow micro-machines from carbon

Mar 09, 2011

(PhysOrg.com) -- A Brigham Young University physics student and his professor had some fun with their new method of growing tiny machines from carbon molecules.

The kids are alright

May 26, 2011

Children should be seen and not heard... who says? A Philosophy academic at The University of Nottingham is challenging the adage by teaching primary school children to argue properly.

Can U.S. law handle polygamy?

Jun 21, 2011

HBO's Big Love and TLC's reality-TV offering Sister Wives have thrust polygamy into popular culture in the United States. Estimates are that somewhere between 50,000-100,000 families in this country are currently risking crimin ...

Recommended for you

Economist outlines work on managing tasks and time

22 hours ago

"When a man knows he is to be hanged in a fortnight," said Samuel Johnson, "it concentrates his mind wonderfully." Most of us, spared such an imperative, carry on in a less-concentrated state, but it holds ...

Companies do not use online HRM effectively

Dec 15, 2014

Professor Tanya Bondarouk of the University of Twente thinks it's embarrassing : many companies and organizations are still not making effective use of e-HRM systems. These online systems can be used for a wide range of HRM-related ...

Happy-go-lucky CEOs score better returns

Dec 11, 2014

A CEO's natural sunny disposition can have an impact on the way the market reacts to announcements of company earnings, according to research from the University of British Columbia's Sauder School of Business.

User comments : 128

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Shakescene21
5 / 5 (3) Sep 29, 2011
So UPS asserts that trade "creates more jobs than we lose", but then the article doesn't provide a shred of evidence supporting this assertion.

The real message of the article is "What's good for UPS is good for America."
stargazing
5 / 5 (2) Sep 29, 2011
Well yes, it creates jobs for UPS, in China, Mexico and everywhere else BUT the USA.
PinkElephant
5 / 5 (4) Sep 29, 2011
I never thought I'd see a company like UPS come out in favor of more shipping. Don't they realize the impact on their business? =P

Seriously though, UPS is showing typical new-age short-sightedness.

Once the U.S. consumer is completely tapped out and maxed-out in terms of debt, there will be a rapid drop in purchasing and shipments of all kinds -- a.k.a. "economic collapse". In the long term, "free trade" and the chronic trade deficits and loss of capital and industries that it promotes, will utterly bankrupt the U.S. This process of fiscal and economic evisceration, industrial and intellectual self-immolation, and general looting via "financial engineering" is already quite well along; the macroeconomic reality can no longer be masked by easy issuance of cheap debt. Consumption cannot grow faster than actual production on a sustainable basis; nor can debt sustainably grow faster than GDP.

The Ponzi economy is well past the cliff edge and in for a very "rough landing", UPS.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) Sep 29, 2011
The only reason any city existed was to facilitate trade.
Singapore, Hong Kong and Macau among hundreds of other cities around the world would not be the economic powers they are without free trade.
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (6) Sep 29, 2011
"Despite the rock-bottom pricing structure subsidized by the various Eastern European governments, Russian Ladas, Polski Fiats, and Czech Skodas have not cornered the relatively open automobile market in Canada or Switzerland. Due to their greater economic efficiency, the Japanese and South Koreans provide far better cars for only a little more money. All dumping provided the Communists was a chance to subsidize the poorest segment of the Canadian auto market. "
http://www.thefre...pproach/
The creation of the USA was in part to facilitate free trade among the states. It has worked quite well to increase liberty and prosperity.
PinkElephant
4.3 / 5 (6) Sep 29, 2011
would not be the economic powers they are without free trade
Prove it. Why wouldn't they be economic powers without what you call "free trade", but with FAIR trade instead.
Due to their greater economic efficiency, the Japanese and South Koreans provide far better cars for only a little more money.
With most of the parts or assembly no longer sourced in Japan or South Korea. Where a company has its headquarters does not correlate with where it actually creates jobs (and where actual jobs are lost.)
The creation of the USA was in part to facilitate free trade among the states.
A common currency helped, and so did common labor and environmental standards. There is no such thing as "free trade" when your trading "partner" is in fact a malicious Mercantilist who brazenly steals IP, treats its workforce like slaves, and shirks environmental controls in lieu of short-term profit.

Free trade implies fair trade. What you call "free trade" is in fact Free Rape.
Pressure2
5 / 5 (4) Sep 29, 2011
What the UPS chairman forgot to mention was that our present trade deals with China and Mexico create 1 new UPS job for every 3 factory jobs they eliminate in the US. These trade deals are a great deal for China, Mexico and the UPS because they gain the 3 factory jobs lost in the US plus 1 more UPS job.

ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (7) Sep 29, 2011
These trade deals are a great deal for China, Mexico and the UPS because they gain the 3 factory jobs lost in the US plus 1 more UPS job.

Rubbish.
If you want to keep factory jobs in the USA, lower the cost of doing business in the USA.
The US govt is threatening to force Boeing to send factory jobs overseas because they are trying to stop Boeing from expanding to South Carolina.
China needs airliners and wants to buy Boeing airliners. If Boeing can't make them fast enough China will build their own or buy from someone else.
PinkElephant
4.3 / 5 (6) Sep 29, 2011
If you want to keep factory jobs in the USA, lower the cost of doing business in the USA.
Yes, that would mean an average worker wage of about $10 per day, with no benefits, vacations, or weekends off. Also, zero environmental or workplace regulation. And why not? I *totally* see your point.
If Boeing can't make them fast enough China will build their own or buy from someone else.
Do you know why Boeing can't make them fast enough? Why the 787 is so many years behind? Because Boeing was trying to "save costs" by sourcing its parts from all over the world rather than just making them domestically. They really saved themselves SO MUCH by trying to be cheap. A couple more such frugality crusades, and all of Boeing's troubles will be over, permanently.

What WILL happen, is China will steal Boeing's patents, industrial processes, and designs, and make its own planes anyway. That is and always was the plan. It's what happens with "outsourcing" and "free trading".
Shakescene21
5 / 5 (4) Sep 30, 2011
@ryqqesoqn - What you are calling free trade is actually a rigged con game which is destroying the American economy. China and some other countries have rigged currency prices so that we can't compete. And the Value-Added Tax is a shamelessly unfair (but WTO-legal) device to screw US exporters and subsidize US imports. And foreign tariffs tend to be higher than US tariffs. And our toughest competitors have pathetic wage rates, environmental requirements, safety, or heath protection. Is it any surprise that we have a $600 billion trade deficit? Is it any surprise that we have 9% unemployment?
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) Oct 01, 2011
History shows market forces destroy 'rigged' games.
Smoot Hawley led to retaliation and world wars.
pathetic wage rates, environmental requirements, safety, or heath protection.

How do you expect this to change if no one trades with them so they can earn the wealth to improve?
And this has been demonstrated time and again, increasing wealth leads to better wages, pollution control and safety.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Oct 01, 2011
What WILL happen, is China will steal Boeing's patents, industrial processes, and designs, and make its own planes anyway.

If they are as good at making planes as they are at high speed rail, who will fly in their planes?
Pressure2
4.5 / 5 (2) Oct 01, 2011
What WILL happen, is China will steal Boeing's patents, industrial processes, and designs, and make its own planes anyway.

If they are as good at making planes as they are at high speed rail, who will fly in their planes?

It pains me to say this but they are better at high speed rails than we are, we don't even have any.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Oct 01, 2011
If trade wars are launched what will happen to the 'fair trade' movement?
Trader Joes, Whole Foods, etc. and their 'progressive' customers who support 'fair' trade will loose those products in trade wars. How will that make y'all feel?
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Oct 01, 2011
What WILL happen, is China will steal Boeing's patents, industrial processes, and designs, and make its own planes anyway.

If they are as good at making planes as they are at high speed rail, who will fly in their planes?

It pains me to say this but they are better at high speed rails than we are, we don't even have any.

At what cost?
Their high speed rail is unaffordable for their people and their safety record is not so good. A lightning strike recently caused a collision.
Maybe this is why they want to buy more airliners: better, faster, cheaper.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Oct 01, 2011
"The trains, a symbol of the countrys rapid development, have drawn praise from President Obama. But what began in February with the firing and detention of the countrys top railway official has spiraled into a corruption investigation that has raised questions about the projects future."
"Last week, the new leadership at the Railways Ministry announced that to enhance safety, the top speed of all trains was being decreased from about 218 mph to 186. "
"ministry also announced it would reduce ticket prices to boost lagging ridership "
http://www.washin...ory.html
Pressure2
5 / 5 (1) Oct 01, 2011
Smoot Hawley had little if anything to do with the WW2. It came about because of one sick individual and the flawed treaty ending the WW1. Oh, the exploding population growth in Europe an the Far East at the beginning of the 20th century also played a major role.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Oct 01, 2011
"In announcing the safety checks, officials said that in some places, villagers had built pigpens beneath bridges holding high-speed tracks, causing a potential hazard. They also cited concerns about people and dangerous materials being too close to the tracks, increasing the risk of casualties.

For now, the high-speed trains appear to have few riders, mainly because ticket prices are considered exorbitantly high for most Chinese."
"During Februarys annual migration, officials noticed that the high-speed trains were largely empty. But the slow trains on those lines have been taken out of use, giving people few choices. As a result, the highways were clogged and more people rode long-distance buses."
http://www.washin...y_1.html
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Oct 01, 2011
"The shrinkage in world trade brought on by the tariff wars helped set the stage for World War II a few years later. In 1929, the rest of the world owed American citizens $30 billion. Germanys Weimar Republic was struggling to pay the enormous reparations bill imposed by the disastrous Treaty of Versailles. When tariffs made it nearly impossible for foreign businessmen to sell their goods in American markets, the burden of their debts became massively heavier and emboldened demagogues like Adolf Hitler. When goods dont cross frontiers, armies will, warns an old but painfully true maxim."
http://www.fee.or...ression/
Pressure2
5 / 5 (2) Oct 01, 2011
Rygg2, I will grant you Smoot Hawley was a mistake but here is a way to put in place a balanced trade policy that uses tariffs with out starting a trade war.

The trade agreement would be between individual countries with both countries have exactly the same rights.
The tariffs could only be imposed when a trade deficit with the other country reached 10% over the preceding 6 month period.
Once the deficit dropped below 5% for the preceding 6 months the tariff would have to be eliminated.
The tariff would have to be applied to all products and services at the same rate. This would eliminate the politics.

It would be a Balanced Trade Policy. It would not start a trade war. It would be self defeating for the country running the trade surplus to retaliate because they have the most to lose right from the start and the most to gain by keeping their built-in 5% trade surplus protected by the agreement.
Continued
Pressure2
5 / 5 (3) Oct 01, 2011
The trade agreements we have now lower working standards and wages around the world. It is a race to the bottom on every front.

A Balanced Trade Agreement could actually raise the standard of living around the world because if a country was running a trade surplus they could raise their prices to reduce their exports permitting the trade to grow in a balanced manner. This would have several advantages for them, they could reap more money for the same amount of work. Some of this money could be used to increase the wages of the people creating the goods and services. This would increase political stability in that country.

Rgyy2, here's the best part of all, The World Trade Organization could go into the scrape heap of history!
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Oct 01, 2011
"The balance of trade is an article of faith. "
http://www.econli...s13.html

"My problem is this: I have a trade deficit with J.C. Penney. Thats right. Month after month, I buy more from J.C. Penney than J.C. Penney buys from me.

In fact, J.C. Penney has never yet bought anything at all from me. Its been a one-way street right from the day I got my credit card in the mail. And I dont expect that this is going to change any time soon because J.C. Penney shows no interest in buying my chief export, which is columns like this one. It just doesnt seem fair."
"This trade deficit silliness is a throwback to the less enlightened times of 16th century mercantilists. "
http://www.mackinac.org/6419

ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Oct 01, 2011
P, did you notice that the Swiss franc has increased in value because the Swiss have been responsible and the ROW has been inflating their currency.
Swiss depend upon exports so their exports cost more in other currencies reducing their exports forcing employers to layoff people.
Tourism is down because the inflated currencies don't buy so much in Switzerland. For the Swiss who still have jobs, their franc buys much more in other countries, but there are not so many Swiss tourists.
So P thinks a balance of trade agreement would fix this?
Maybe govts should stop devaluing (inflating) their currencies?
Pressure2
5 / 5 (3) Oct 01, 2011
No doubt unforeseen problems would crop up, that is just the nature of economics and people. But the currency problems should pretty much disappear over time. One of the main influences effecting the value of a currency is determined by whether the country behind the currency is running a trade surplus or deficit. (Of course another major one is whether a country is printing too much of their currency.) Another benefit would be that currency traders would find in much more difficult to make money. Also countries would benefit very little by keeping the value of their currency artificially low.
continued. . .
Pressure2
5 / 5 (3) Oct 01, 2011
Tariffs would not be required, only a right, by these trade balancing agreements. So if it is deemed beneficial to run a deficit with a country (Penny's) we have this agreement with we would not have institute a tariff on their imports. We may decide not to because what we import from that country is very important to our economy or maybe we wouldn't for political reasons.

These trade agreements would be trading rights both countries agree too, but they would be limited by the 3 basic rules in the agreement.
PinkElephant
5 / 5 (4) Oct 01, 2011
My problem is this: I have a trade deficit with J.C. Penney.
How do you earn the money to pay for J.C. Penney's products? Are you just putting it all on your credit card? What happens when your credit card is maxed out, and you've lost the know-how and the infrastructure to make those products yourself?
Swiss depend upon exports...
For GROWTH. They don't need their exports to maintain their economy at a constant level. You do realize, don't you, that infinite growth is impossible in the real world? You do know that unsustainable growth engenders an eventual catastrophic unwinding?
History shows market forces destroy 'rigged' games.
"Free trade" between developed and developing nations is the most highly rigged game of them all.
And this has been demonstrated time and again, increasing wealth leads to better wages, pollution control and safety.
That takes decades. In the meantime, WE go down the toilet. We can't carry the whole world on our shoulders.
Shakescene21
5 / 5 (4) Oct 01, 2011
@ryggesoqn2 - Thank you for posting the link to that goofy article on the the columnist's "trade deficit" with Penney's. I see the article was written in 1998, when this guy could be excused for his ignorance of what was to come.
His "trade deficit" with Penney's and other stores had to be offset by a "trade surplus" with his employer, or he would have been in trouble. He could have deficits with some entities and surpluses with others, but he had to have an overall "trade balance".
The international trade models of the 20th Century assumed that a successful country's overall balance of trade, in the long run would be zero. However, over the past 20 years the US has had huge and growing trade deficits, and is being stripped of its manufacturing base. The USA had an overall trade deficit of $635 billion in 2010, and the deficit will probably be even worse this year.
http://www.census...tml#2010
Prosperity won't return until we resolve this problem.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Oct 01, 2011
"Acting on behalf of various interest groups, politicians fret over trade deficits but is it something that ordinary Americans ought to worry about? What politicians and inept people in the news media, whose duty is to inform, never bring up is that in the international trade arena, there are two accounts. One is called the current account, which consists of goods and services exchanged between Americans and foreigners. That's the account where we have a large trade deficit. Americans buy more goods and services from foreigners than they buy from us."
"There's another account called the capital account. It consists of foreign direct investment in the U.S. such as the purchase or construction of machinery, buildings or even whole manufacturing plants plus foreign purchases of stocks, bonds and currencies. For example, Toyota might sell me a Lexus, manufactured in Tahara, Japan for $70,000 but not purchase any American goods such as wheat, cotton or steel. "http://townhall.com/columnists
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Oct 01, 2011
"That means there is a $70,000 trade deficit with the Japanese. What will the Toyota seller do with the $70,000? It would be wonderful if Toyota and other foreign producers just treasured dollars and simply stored them. We'd be on easy street having a few Americans printing up dollars whilst the rest of the world sends us cars, computers, coffee and other goods in exchange for them.

It doesn't work out that way. In our example, instead of purchasing American goods with the $70,000, Toyota might put the money toward building a Toyota plant, as it has already done, in Huntsville, Ala., that employs nearly 800 Americans. As a result of that current account deficit of $70,000, we have a capital account surplus (net inflow of capital into the U.S.) of $70,000."
http://townhall.c...s/page/2
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) Oct 01, 2011
"What about the argument that American producers are undercut by cheap goods imported from low-wage countries like China? Whose fault is this? The answer is easy. If American consumers refused to buy goods produced in China, there would be no Chinese-made goods on store shelves. American consumers who prefer lower prices to higher prices are the true enemy of American companies and their unions whining about "free but fair trade." "
"They should show up in front of Walmart and other sellers of foreign products and denounce American consumers who buy foreign-made products. That would be honest. The "free trade but fair trade" lobby finds it more effective to pursue their agenda by stealth -- namely intimidate and bribe congressmen into enacting tariffs and quotas."
http://townhall.c...s/page/2
'P2' and others here seem to support national socialism.
PinkElephant
5 / 5 (2) Oct 01, 2011
As a result of that current account deficit of $70,000, we have a capital account surplus (net inflow of capital into the U.S.) of $70,000.
Prove it. Show me the actual hard numbers for this "capital account".
the purchase or construction of machinery, buildings or even whole manufacturing plants plus foreign purchases of stocks, bonds and currencies.
When you sell your buildings, you convert from owner to renter: even more cash flowing out of your pocket, even faster. Once you spend the cash you got from selling your buildings, what shall you be selling next?

Stocks? The world doesn't need to buy OUR stocks. They can buy stocks in any country. They can buy stocks of companies that aren't being killed by unfair trade.

Bonds? How much more of our debt will the world buy before they realize we couldn't ever possibly pay it all back?

Currencies? They'll use the dollars they got from us, to buy dollars?
PinkElephant
5 / 5 (3) Oct 01, 2011
Whose fault is this? The answer is easy. ... American consumers
American consumers want their cheap crap, but what they don't realize is that by insisting on the cheap crap, they are eliminating their own jobs and earnings, thereby destroying themselves in the long term.

This will continue until the average wage and standard of living in America drops down to somewhere between what it is now, and what it will become in the rest of the world when the global economy finally reaches equilibrium. Trouble is, there is 300 million of us and another 500 million in Europe. On the other side of the scales is the other 5200 million.

I'm afraid the eventual equilibrium point is much closer to where the developing world is today, than where the developed world used to be.

And until we reach that miserable equilibrium, let's prepare for 50% unemployment, riots in the streets, and complete disintegration of society and economy.

When shall we level about this with the American Consumer?
Shakescene21
5 / 5 (4) Oct 02, 2011
China can sell their goods so cheaply because of very low wages, low environmental standards, minimal health and safety standards, AND currency price rigging. The first three would be illegal in the United States, but international trade allows foreign producers to escape these requirements yet still sell in the USA in competition with US producers who must obey these laws. In combination with Chinese rigging of currency prices, American production is not competitive. So American manufacturers relocate or go out of business, and the US job base shrinks.

Then comes the pressure to "become competitive" by cutting wages, health insurance, pensions, environmental standards, health and safety, etc. As PinkElephant notes, we might eventually become competitive through an equilibrium process that will leave us with Third World conditions.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Oct 02, 2011
Show me the actual hard numbers for this "capital account".

http://www.bea.go...nual.pdf

Appendix A: 2010, current account outflow $136B
net financial IN flow $250B

Looks like quite a few foreigners want US stocks, nearly $3,000 BILLION:
http://www.census...1205.pdf
kaasinees
1.4 / 5 (5) Oct 02, 2011
If i was the US gov. i would increase the tax on import products by a lot so local products can compete again. than use that tax to put pressure on foreign gov.s to treat their workers better.

But if i were the US gov. i would do a lot of things different.
PinkElephant
5 / 5 (2) Oct 02, 2011
Appendix A: 2010, current account outflow $136B
net financial IN flow $250B
Now you're making up numbers. Or is it just that you see what you want to see?

Appendix A: 2010, ACTUAL current account outflow $470B, net financial inflow $254B.

You were saying?
Looks like quite a few foreigners want US stocks, nearly $3,000 BILLION
There are always a lot of suckers holding the bag right before a bubble detonates. And the U.S. debt/equity bubble is the largest one of them all. 30 years in the making. When this Ponzi blows up for good, there'll be a lot of hand-wringing about how nobody saw it coming; as a matter of fact they can all see it coming, but just like you too many are still in denial.

In the meantime, what's happened to wages, benefits, and employment numbers? It's only just beginning, too. The Fed's interest rates can't drop below 0: they're all out of gimmicks.

Should the Tea Party actually succeed, the final collapse will begin very soon. And about time too.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (1) Oct 02, 2011
There is only one example I can think of where a real, protective tariff was successful. Harely Davidson asked for protection from imports for a fixed period of time while HD reorganized and improved quality control.
HD lived up to their agreement and now their competitors are copying them.
Detroit was protected from competitors until the 70s and we found how inept US car companies are.
If P2s socialist tariffs were in place would Suburu be building cars in IN, or VW in Chattanooga or ...?
And don't forget about how tort law drove out small airplane manufacturers from the US.
Cin5456
5 / 5 (1) Oct 02, 2011
If American consumers refused to buy goods produced in China, there would be no Chinese-made goods on store shelves.

Fat Chance of consumer protests when most Americans dont have enough income to be consumers anymore.

We used to protest goods produced in nations that condoned child labor exploitation. I think the last one we tried to boycott was Kathy Lee Gifford who was stung by reports in the mid-1990s that her namesake clothing was made in Honduran factories that used child labor, and this helped to stunt sales of her merchandise, some industry experts believe.

But that protest hasnt been repeated for exploited labor in China because the poorest Americans can only afford the Asian imports offered at Wal-Mart, Target,or K-Mart. They dont have the option of refusing to buy because it is all they can afford. Its been about fifteen years since a successful protest was organized. Our economy is not the strong, moral purchaser it once was.
Cin5456
5 / 5 (1) Oct 02, 2011
Stores offering goods made in China is the partially the result of long, drawn-out economic collapse in the US, and partially because Wal-Mart and their ilk dont pay employees enough to climb out of poverty. The middle class becomes the new poverty-stricken unemployed. And jobs are shifted just across the border into Mexico where labor is forced on women who have no choice but to work under deplorable conditions.

"Maquiladoras are owned by U.S., Japanese, and European countries and some could be considered 'sweatshops' composed of young women working for as little as 50 cents an hour, for up to ten hours a day, ...the cost of living in border towns is often 30% higher...and many of the maquiladora women...are forced to live in shantytowns that lack electricity and water surrounding the factory cities... 90% of the goods produced at maquiladoras are shipped north to the United States."

http://geography....oras.htm
stargazing
2 / 5 (1) Oct 02, 2011
There is only one example I can think of where a real, protective tariff was successful. Harely Davidson asked for protection from imports for a fixed period of time while HD reorganized and improved quality control.
HD lived up to their agreement and now their competitors are copying them.
Detroit was protected from competitors until the 70s and we found how inept US car companies are.
If P2s socialist tariffs were in place would Suburu be building cars in IN, or VW in Chattanooga or ...?
And don't forget about how tort law drove out small airplane manufacturers from the US.

Sure Subaru would have built a plant in Indiana, probably several years earlier to avoid the socialist tariffs!
stargazing
2 / 5 (1) Oct 02, 2011
According to Wiki the US had a current account deficit of $561 billion for 2010. This has been going on for decades. We sure are well behaved suckers aren't we?
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (1) Oct 02, 2011
According to Wiki the US had a current account deficit of $561 billion for 2010. This has been going on for decades. We sure are well behaved suckers aren't we?

If we are such suckers why has that money been reinvested in the USA?

"Appendix A: 2010, current account outflow $136B
net financial IN flow $250B

Looks like quite a few foreigners want US stocks, nearly $3,000 BILLION:"
Sources above.

"In our view, the
most striking features of the world at present are the low rates of investment and growth in
some of the richest countries, whose surpluses account for about half of the US de¯cit. The
result is that ¯nancial capital is °owing out of countries with low investment and growth
and into the US and other fast-growing countries."
http://pages.ster...test.pdf
Pressure2
5 / 5 (2) Oct 02, 2011
Okay so they invest 3 trillion in our stock and bond markets. Hey, Rygg2 open your eyes, where do you think they got this money from? They got it from a surplus of exports to this country. So we have to sell off part of our homestead to get that money back into this country to keep our economy from sinking into a real depression. Now we are working for them. Soon we will renters in our own country. This is very very smart indeed!!
Pressure2
5 / 5 (2) Oct 02, 2011
The thing you Regressives fail to understand is our trade deficit is the mother of our internal Federal deficit. The Federal government has to run a deficit for two reason, one the support the people who lost their jobs because of the trade deficit and also to get that money exported back into this country. Trade deficits are a lose lose for our future.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (1) Oct 02, 2011
So we have to sell off part of our homestead

What are 'they' going to do with it?
Recall the outcry when some Japanese bought Pebble Beach golf club? The owners made a good profit and the Japanese later sold at a loss. Where the Japanese planning to move the golf course to Japan?

I know socialists refuse to understand the importance of capital so I am not surprised.

The current depression and the depression from the 30s are the result of socialist policies, not capitalism. The same socialist policies P2 advocates.

our stock and bond markets
'our'? Your national socialism is showing.
Pressure2
5 / 5 (1) Oct 02, 2011
Here is another way to look at these trade deficits, it is real DEBT we are passing onto our children while we live beyond our means consuming MORE than we are producing.
It is a real debt year after year after year accumulating to nearly 8 trillion over the last 3 decades of so. We ought to be ashame of ourselves for doing this to our children.
Pressure2
5 / 5 (1) Oct 02, 2011
Rygg2, the Great Depression and our present Great Recession are both the result of UNDER regulated capitalism!
Isn't it strange how both started under Republican administration???
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (1) Oct 02, 2011
"Tariffs are just another form of taxes, which result is even less jobs as the businesses that the tariffs are protecting go bankrupt.

The real issue with our trade problems are the massive increase in money that we continue to create (inflation) and export in exchange for goods and services.

The source of our demand to continue to create new money (inflation) is our ever expanding government.

If we stopped creating inflation, China wouldnt be able to continue vendor financing our consumers to buy their products and we wouldnt be in this situation to begin with.

Tariffs don't protect jobs or wages. The only real solution to our trade problems is to stop printing money and reduce the size of our government so that the dollar strengthens in value rather then continues to weaken."
http://www.pennyj...?aid=520
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (2) Oct 02, 2011
Rygg2, the Great Depression and our present Great Recession are both the result of UNDER regulated capitalism!
Isn't it strange how both started under Republican administration???

Socialism is practiced by both parties.
Why do you think the media supports anti-conservative Republican candidates like Romney or Christy? They will continue to support statist policies as P2 supports.
Wilson's 'progressive' polices led to a significant depression in the 20s, but Coolidge didn't make it worse. He cut govt spending and you don't here much about that do you?
Hoover supported govt intervention and FDR made it worse. Govt was the cause, not capitalism.
Pressure2
5 / 5 (1) Oct 02, 2011
Duh, and why do you thing we continue to create more money?
I doubt you know so I will tell you, to replace some of the money lost by our trade deficits. Otherwise we would be in The Great Depression 2 now instead of a Great Recession.
Cin5456
5 / 5 (2) Oct 02, 2011
China can sell their goods so cheaply because of very low wages, low environmental standards, minimal health and safety standards, AND currency price rigging.


The also sell so cheaply because their government owns the entire labor market through the a state-run, communist party stangle-hold on all resources owned worldwide.

The labor market in China depends completely on state hiring, even where tiny capitalist style markets are a front for the Politburo.

And trade deals with China for multinationals looking to set up factories in China, to take advantage of cheap labor, have found that once China has the factories up and running glitch free, the government comes in and takes over all the technology and equipment the multinational provided for startup. They are locked out of their factories, all assets stolen. They lose everything they put into it. But new takers still delude themselves that their turn will be different. Not Likely!
Pressure2
5 / 5 (1) Oct 02, 2011
Gees, it looks like Socialism in China is beating Capitalism in America. I thought that would be impossible since Capitalism is so superior to Socialism according to Rygg2.
Pressure2
5 / 5 (2) Oct 02, 2011
Do the math Rygg2, let's see our accumulated trade deficits for the last 3 decades total about 8 tillion dollars. From your information about 3 trillion of this is invested back into this country. That leaves us about 5 trillion short. Here is the mystery question, how do you think the other 5 trillion was replaced?
Cin5456
5 / 5 (2) Oct 02, 2011
"In domestic affairs, Coolidge advocated more cuts in federal taxation and spending, maintaining a high protective tariff, and realigning regulatory policy to favor business."

That's the same policy that Republicans have been advocating and legislating since Reagan. It doesn't work. It was proven under Coolidge, Hoover, Reagan and both Bush administrations. Trickledown economics is a tragic joke.

"Hoover. . . deeply believed in the Efficiency Movement, which held that the government and the economy were riddled with inefficiency and waste, and could be improved by experts who could identify the problems and solve them."

"Hoover entered office with a plan to reform the nation's regulatory system, believing that a federal bureaucracy should have limited regulation over a country's economic system."

He shut down regulatory agencies in the belief that less government is better. He was wrong. Stock speculation went wild, creating the depression.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (2) Oct 02, 2011
Gees, it looks like Socialism in China is beating Capitalism in America. I thought that would be impossible since Capitalism is so superior to Socialism according to Rygg2.

Why don't you move there if China is the socialist miracle?
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (1) Oct 02, 2011
Coolidge: "No party hack, he was always at war with the Republican regulars and was named to the national ticket in 1920 in spite of them. His views on blacks were far in advance of his time, particularly well beyond a Woodrow Wilson who was grounded in southern white superiority. "
"The Coolidge-Mellon team took dead aim at a steeply graduated federal income tax. The tax had been implemented in 1913 by the Woodrow Wilson reformers, imposed only on the rich and intended solely to redistribute income. But with U.S. entrance into World War I and its unprecedented demand for revenue, the income tax became a revenue-producer with a steeply graduated tax structure rising to a near-confiscatory top marginal rate of 77%. In the first two Harding budgets shaped by Mellon, that top rate went down to 56% and then 46%."
http://www.calvin...acy.html
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (1) Oct 02, 2011
"That began an annual effort by Coolidge as president to lower taxes. The Republican-controlled congress was hardly submissive. Republican regulars did not care much for Coolidge, and the Republican Progressives joined Democrats in advocating higher marginal tax rates. "
"In his inaugural address the next March, he said "I want the people of America to be able to work less for the government and more for themselves." "
"The Coolidge boom was built, not on stock speculation, but on his tax cuts. "
"After Hoover's election, lame-duck President Coolidge tipped what he thought about Smoot-Hawley. He said that he didn't think that the farmers would be helped. " {He was correct.}
http://www.calvin...acy.html
Like Reagan, Coolidge was opposed by the socialist Republicans.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (1) Oct 02, 2011
"Hoover's role as founder of a revolutionary program of government planning to combat depression has been unjustly neglected by historians. Franklin D. Roosevelt, in large part, merely elaborated the policies laid down by his predecessor."
"Herbert Clark Hoover was very much the "forward-looking" politician. We have seen that Hoover pioneered in attempts to intimidate investment bankers in placing foreign loans. Characteristic of all Hoover's interventions was the velvet glove on the mailed fist: i.e., the businessmen would be exhorted to adopt "voluntary" measures that the government desired, but implicit was the threat that if business did not "volunteer" properly, compulsory controls would soon follow."
"Featured in Hoover's plan were increased inheritance taxes, public dams, and, significantly, government regulation of the stock market to eliminate "vicious speculation." "
http://mises.org/daily/2902
Pressure2
not rated yet Oct 02, 2011
Gees, it looks like Socialism in China is beating Capitalism in America. I thought that would be impossible since Capitalism is so superior to Socialism according to Rygg2.

Why don't you move there if China is the socialist miracle?

Probably for the same reason you don't move to the New Capitalist Russia with their flat tax and wild west capitalism.
Pressure2
5 / 5 (1) Oct 02, 2011
Rygg2, thanks for the lessons in history. So what I learned was taxes were cut, Reagan and Bush did the same, and regulations were slashed and burned. And gees, it didnt end well then and it didn't end well this this either did it?
Why are you surprised? Don't you learn anything from history?
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (2) Oct 02, 2011
What's so great about China?
"But before you worry about Chinas becoming No. 1 any time soon, consider the remaining gap between its economy and the U.S. economy. In 2009, Chinas GDP was $4.9 trillion, only 34 percent of the U.S.s $14.3 trillion. Because China has 1.32 billion people, or 4.3 times as many as the U.S. has, the gap in per-capita GDP was even bigger: Chinas $3,709 was only 8 percent of the U.S.s $46,405.

Just to maintain this gap at current levels, Chinese GDP will need to grow at double-digit rates for four years before tapering off, or rise sixfold in three decades (assuming that U.S. real GDP increases 2 percent per year on average for the next 30 years, and using government population projections). To close the per-capita GDP gap in 30 years, Chinese GDP would need to grow about 10 percent per year for three decades, or expand to 17.8 times its current size in that period. "
http://www.bloomb...rd-landi
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (2) Oct 02, 2011
"Chris Christie and Barack Obama are alike in one critical respect: both are the kind of politician endangered elites offer up when they correctly perceive their power threatened. To preserve their dominance, establishments seek above all to protect the orthodoxies they have enshrined and the trends they have fostered."
"The advocates for Christie are selling him in exactly the same way Obama's did, and for exactly the same reason -- Obama did not, and Christie does not, threaten their respective party orthodoxies, and both promise a comfortable working relationship with party elites."
"Christie's perfectly timed speech provided the opening for a last-ditch attempt by a Republican establishment, worried about a faltering Romney, to head off trends they do not like represented by the Tea Party, Jim DeMint, strong alternative conservative and libertarian voices in the New Media, and other unsettling influences on the right."
http://www.americ..._the_ski
Pressure2
5 / 5 (1) Oct 02, 2011
Rygg2, I'm not the one that is saying China is so great, I think they leave a lot to be desired.
YOU are the one claiming we cannot compete with them on the world markets or even inside this country. That is YOUR explanation as to why we continually run a trade deficit with them.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (2) Oct 02, 2011
"The many flaws in progressivism -- the top-down, big-government, high-taxation model that seeks controls for benevolent reasons yet invariably falls prey to corruption -- are as blatant today as they are in Burns and Novicks film. Even the evangelist movement that underlay the temperance /abstinence movement has persisted virtually unchanged -- except now the literal evangelists are sad and comical figures with no influence on anybody except their marginalized congregations. In the 21st century, the real action, the influential leaders with immense followings whose numbers include the most powerful members of the media, are in eco-vangelism.

Prohibition is a virtual checklist of everything people dislike about DC today:

Read more: http://www.nypost...Zf8WuNaD
"
YOU are the one claiming we cannot compete with them

Not I. You are the advocate for tariffs, not I.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (2) Oct 02, 2011
regulations were slashed and burned.

Really? Which ones?
Pressure2
5 / 5 (1) Oct 02, 2011
Than what is your explanation for our HUGE trade deficit with China? It cannot be because they are a communist country can it?
My explanation is simple there is no such thing as a fair or free trade agreement.
Pressure2
3 / 5 (2) Oct 02, 2011
"He (Hoover) shut down regulatory agencies in the belief that less government is better. He was wrong. Stock speculation went wild, creating the depression."
PinkElephant
5 / 5 (2) Oct 02, 2011
assuming that U.S. real GDP increases 2 percent per year on average for the next 30 years
Damn, you're stupid. First of all, there has been no growth in actual U.S. economy since 1980. All the so-called "growth" in GDP came exclusively from 3 sources:

1) Currency devaluation driven by govt. deficit spending
2) Massive public and private debt expansion
3) Massive increases in financial leverage due to deregulation

Real wages haven't risen since the 1970's. Unemployment has only just started rising; it has a lot farther to go. If we withdrew govt. deficit spending right now and stopped new debt creation, our economy would instantly contract by 30-40%. That includes this useless and meaningless "GDP" figure.

Our REAL economy (as opposed to financial pyramid schemes and service-industry Ponzi) has been contracting for the last 30 years, and that contraction can no longer be masked by throwing more debt into the system or continuing balance sheet fraud amongst the megabanks.
Shakescene21
5 / 5 (2) Oct 02, 2011
"Tariffs are just another form of taxes, which result is even less jobs as the businesses that the tariffs are protecting go bankrupt"

The purpose of the tariff was to try to save the domestic manufacturer from bankruptcy. In what way does the tariff make a protected company more likely to fail?
PinkElephant
not rated yet Oct 02, 2011
I make no secret that I'm a fan of the macroeconomic commentary on Karl Denninger's Market Ticker. Though I violently disagree with many of his political stances tangential to the economics, when it comes to fiscal matters I see no flaw in his data or his math. Here's a chart from his latest post:

http://market-tic...ynr=2248

Here, in data from the Fed and the BEA, it is clearly seen that every year from 1980 until briefly interrupted by the rebound of 2008-2009, debt in the U.S. has grown faster than GDP.

Since debt issuance is actually included in the GDP number as the dollars "gained" by selling of debt notes are immediately put into circulation, then it clearly follows that had we not grown our debt at all, the GDP growth numbers would have been consistently negative every year from 1980 until 2008.

THAT is a long-term economic contraction, if ever there was one.

Also, debt growing faster than GDP = eventual macroeconomic detonation, ala Greece.
Cin5456
5 / 5 (1) Oct 02, 2011
1) Follow the money, fool.

The reason for the boom in the 1920s was mechanization during and after WWI, and production of cheap autos, home appliances, and the product catalogues that gave anyone the chance to buy goods from the big cities. And the soldiers post-WWI brought home their accumulated war wages and became the ultimate factory workers and consumers. The boom came from the bottom up, from consumers.

Coolidge consistently blocked any attempts at government intrusion into private business. However, the overconfidence of these years contributed to the speculative bubble that sparked the stock market crash and the Great Depression. The government's role as an arbiter rather than an active entity continued under President Herbert Hoover. Hoover worked to get businessmen to respond to the crisis by calling them into conferences and urging them to cooperate. Hoover's vigorous attempts to get business to end the depression failed.
Cin5456
5 / 5 (1) Oct 02, 2011
2) All attempts to get business to use their recently increased wealth from lower tax burdens turned sour. Neither Coolidge, nor Hoover, was successful in getting cooperation from wealthy corporations. Supply side economics did not work.

The wealthy, like the Rockefellers and Stanton began to amass great stores of valuable goods that could be vaulted away or ostentatiously displayed in mansions. They bought private railway cars. Who benefited from sales of that type? The wealthy invested in gold, art, and high value luxury goods which could be put on ice. They did not contribute to consumerism in any way, because they only bought very expensive products specially designed to entice rich customers.

There were so few tangibly wealthy families that only a few dozen of the best products were sold, which did not contribute to the overall economy in any way. The rich bought from the rich and kept their wealth among their class. No such thing as trickle-down economics.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (2) Oct 02, 2011
So Cin, people shouldn't be allowed to keep their money?
And I notice no one can back up their assertions.
In what way does the tariff make a protected company more likely to fail?

They are shielded from competition. Ever wonder why US car companies didn't have cars people wanted to buy in '79?
He (Hoover) shut down regulatory agencies in the belief that less government is better.

Again, no one can back up their assertions.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (2) Oct 02, 2011
Than what is your explanation for our HUGE trade deficit with China? It cannot be because they are a communist country can it?
My explanation is simple there is no such thing as a fair or free trade agreement.

Then why even have any trade agreement?
As for China being a communist country, look under the hood and don't be surprised at what you find, corruption, inefficiency and no rule of law.
Cin5456
not rated yet Oct 02, 2011
3) That is how the wealthiest made it through the depression holding onto their wealth, or sequestering it away. Very few of the truly rich magnates speculated in the stock market, correctly predicting a time when stock market values greatly exceeded the value of the commodities they traded.

That is opposed to the many millions of middle and lower class consumers who worked hard to improve their homes and lives.
Cin5456
not rated yet Oct 02, 2011
So Cin, people shouldn't be allowed to keep their money?


Lowering the taxes on businesses was done specifically to give them more operating capital so they would build more factories, hire more workers, assist in repairing the economy they had a large part in destroying.

That implies an obligation to use their wealth for the common good. They would still profit from those new factories and workers wages, because their goods would continue to be sold, their buisiness would not go bankrupt (while their personal pocketbook remained fat from profits rather than from refunded tax breaks.

I do believe one should be able to keep one's wealth. But from my point of view, there is no wealth at this level to save. Back then, it was all in the pockets of the Rockefellers and men like Stanton.

I believe in enlightened self-interest where the greatest good benefits the greatest number of people. Greed on the other hand benefits nobody.
Cin5456
not rated yet Oct 02, 2011
Than what is your explanation for our HUGE trade deficit with China? It cannot be because they are a communist country can it?
As for China being a communist country, look under the hood and don't be surprised at what you find, corruption, inefficiency and no rule of law.


Corruption goes hand in hand with communism. But, so does tight control of labor pools, and unethical practices.

My explanation for the trade deficit is in two parts. First, they have kept the value of their currency artificially low. That sets up an imbalance right there. Second, the structure of communism keeps wages so low that no other country can compete with their cost of production. Companies like Target buy at low prices, and sell cheap goods at prices commensurate with the American market. The middle-man rakes in enormous profits. Why? Because they can. And China also profits because, however low they are selling their goods, the actual costs of production is far below their selling price.
PinkElephant
5 / 5 (1) Oct 02, 2011
Please stop referring to China as "a communist country". There isn't, nor has there ever been, an actual communist country on this planet. Nor can there ever be one, unless the fundamentals of human nature get seriously altered.

China is a Command Economy ruled by an Oligarchy. Same thing as Russia. This is much closer to Fascism than it is to Communism.

Remember, a central feature of Communism is that there is no private property, and there is no private wealth. That's not the case with China, nor with any other nation on Earth.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Oct 02, 2011
"The better explanation of the Great Depression revealed it was not caused by unfettered market forces. There is nothing in the operation of free markets that would create depressions or even recessions. Rather, we now know that we must look for causes of these phenomena in mismanaged and erroneous government policies. And much of the credit for this change in the way economists look at the Depression must go to Friedman and Schwartzs groundbreaking work on the Feds role. "
http://www.thefre...riedman/

the greatest good benefits the greatest number of people.

Then you must support capitalism.

"The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries." Churchill.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Oct 02, 2011
Command economy, planned economy: aka, socialism.
SR71BlackBird
5 / 5 (2) Oct 02, 2011
A planned economy is socialism, by definition. Communism however, entails that their is common ownership of the means of production as well as no class differentiation. It's a much broader concept than socialism. In fact, where I live (Canada), we have many services which are centrally planned, and we like to keep it that way. No one wants corporations to be profiting off of their health, or rather, lack thereof.
Cin5456
not rated yet Oct 02, 2011
PinkElephant: sorry, I was raised in the fifties and sixties when China was communist, one of the Red Devils. I wasn't aware the definition had changed. What is a Command Economy? And why isn't communism possible according to human nature?

R2: First it wasn't government's fault and now it is government's fault. Make up your mind. Presidents don't govern in a vacuum. A government agency was at fault? Why weren't the presidents aware of it, since they apparently took the stance of hands off the economy? I will catch up on the reading later. The blog is too long. I have work to do. Besides, I don't trust blogs all that much. They are blogging because they have a spin to present. This one obviously is super-capitalistic (-expealidocious.)

I keep going back to the fact that businesses outright refused to assist in correcting the problem. Typical capitalistic profit-protectionism. And that after two presidents had lowered taxes to their wealth benefit.
It sounds awfully like today.
PinkElephant
5 / 5 (1) Oct 03, 2011
Cin,

What China (or the Soviet Union) _calls_ itself does not necessarily describe what it really _is_. The Soviet Union was permanently stuck in a state resembling what Lenin called "Dictatorship of the Proletariat" -- which in Lenin's theory was a necessary intermediate stage during which Capitalist influences are eradicated from society. The next stage afterwards was supposed to be an evolution toward actual Communism. Except it was obviously unachievable, because it assumed that human beings were infinitely malleable blank slates at birth, who could be molded into whatever behavioral pattern the stewards of society decided upon. That theory (Behaviorism) turned out to be false.

In reality, humans are lazy and selfish, and are best motivated by personal gain and competition rather than egalitarian cooperation. Capitalism works with human nature, Communism goes entirely against it. Which is why Communism is impossible in practice, and does not in fact exist in the real world.
PinkElephant
5 / 5 (1) Oct 03, 2011
What China is today (as well as, increasingly again, Russia), is a Fascist regime. Let's call things what they truly are, rather than what they would prefer us to call them.

The "People's Republic of China" is actually the "Fascist Dictatorship of China".
Cin5456
not rated yet Oct 03, 2011
Thanks for the enlightenment, PE. I think I understand now why it can't exist. Now I'll bone up on fascism. I've found a few articles about China's fanaticle intrusion into the lands, business communities, and politics of other countries, notably US and Canada. Frankly, they scare me. They really do want to take over the world, not just kill everyone in the US like Al Queda wants to do.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (1) Oct 04, 2011
China, failure of central planning:
"Getting people to spend requires the Chinese government to eliminate many of the subsidies -- including cheap labor, low interest rates and an undervalued currency -- that have fueled growth so far. Consumers need more income, so companies will have to pay their workers more. Consumers also need a stronger currency to boost their buying power, so exporters will lose some of their competitive edge. Savers need to earn a high enough return to guarantee their retirements, so banks and companies borrowing costs will rise. "
"As a result, vast swaths of Chinese industry could be rendered unprofitable. Bad loans could force the government to step in and recapitalize banks. Fixed investment, which makes up 46 percent of the Chinese economy compared with only 12 percent in the U.S., could fall sharply, undermining the employment growth needed to boost spending."
http://www.bloomb...to-the-g
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (1) Oct 04, 2011
Fascism, socialism, communism, statism....are all the same from the perspective of the individual being politically and economically coerced by these regimes.
They all are opposed to individual liberty, free markets and limited govt.
Those who want to quibble whether China is fascist or communist, why do you really care unless you are a fascist, socialist, statist, communist....?
BTW, the USA implements its fascist control via its regulatory agencies, the IRS, GSEs and its central bank (Federal Reserve).
PinkElephant
not rated yet Oct 04, 2011
They all are opposed to individual liberty, free markets and limited govt.
Of course, individual liberty and free markets are incompatible with limited govt. Under limited govt. the wealthiest and most powerful individuals exert control over all other individuals, organized crime flourishes, markets become monopolized and rigged, corruption takes over the economy, slavery gets reinstated in practice if not in name, and piracy becomes the norm.

This has been abundantly demonstrated by the radical social experiments in various South American and African countries, and more recently in Iraq. Mexico too, is in such a terrible shape today precisely because its government is too weak to stop the crime lords, not because it's too strong.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (1) Oct 04, 2011
nder limited govt. the wealthiest and most powerful individuals exert control over all other individuals, organized crime flourishes, markets become monopolized and rigged, corruption takes over the economy, slavery gets reinstated in practice if not in name, and piracy becomes the norm.

This is inept govt, not limited govt.
How does organized crime flourish if the govt is limited to protecting the property rights of every individual?
Organized crime flourishes under over-reaching regulatory state that fails to enforce the bad laws and regulations it tries to impose.
That's why corruption is so rampant in China. China IS an organized crime state.
Mexico is weak because it is corrupt. It is corrupt because it is socialist. Corruption is the only way anyone can make money.
PinkElephant
not rated yet Oct 04, 2011
How does organized crime flourish if the govt is limited to protecting the property rights of every individual?
Organized crime activities include but are not limited to: petty theft, grand larceny, forced/under-age prostitution, human trafficking, extortion, racketeering, kidnapping for ransom, gambling, gangs and turf wars, insider trading, piracy, pump-and-dump schemes, pyramid schemes, false marketing and false advertising, loan sharking, narcotics manufacturing/distribution/trafficking, money forgery, product forgery, bribing and blackmailing of regulatory and law enforcement agents, price fixing, illicit/illegal disposal of waste, poaching, black market organ harvesting and trafficking, identity theft, credit fraud, industrial espionage and sabotage... for starters.

Also, once you're left bereft of property by not being a local crime lord, "property rights" don't amount to a whole lot for you. That's the overwhelming majority of the population, in the end.
Shakescene21
not rated yet Oct 04, 2011
I would quibble with labeling China a "Fascist" state or even a "Communist" state, because most Chinese have a different world-view than Americans. The Communist Party refers to their system as "Socialism with Chinese characteristics". Most Chinese are not nearly as concerned about individual liberties as most Americans are, and instead are more concerned about stability, prosperity, maintaining face, and increasing China's standing in the world. Chinese also tend to have a remarkable enterpreneurial spirit. I think we need a new intellectual framework to describe some of these Asian economic systems.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (1) Oct 04, 2011
I think we need a new intellectual framework to describe some of these Asian economic systems.

Why? If those oriental 'virtues' were so great, why didn't China rule the world centuries ago?
Recognition of inherent, unalienable, individual human rights is what has led the world to liberty and prosperity.
The socialist, collective 'values' you think are so great has lead to millions murdered by those very 'great' Chinese over hundreds of years.
For centuries, the Chinese enterprise was lower than low. The best and brightest aspired to be a member of bureaucracy.
When the Chinese people were liberated from coerced collectivism, they have prospered as we see in Hong Kong, Macau, Taiwan and in China towns around the world. Like Jewish culture, the Chinese culture has been shaped by oppressive govts stealing their property. Education and family is what enabled them to prosper.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (1) Oct 04, 2011
And I should have added discipline and a strong work ethic as well.
PinkElephant
not rated yet Oct 04, 2011
And you should've added the relocation of manufacturing from Western countries.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (1) Oct 04, 2011
Pinky, organized crime flourishes when the reward (profit) is greater than the risk and if the society doesn't support bad laws.
High cigarette taxes motivates black markets. We all know how organized crime developed because of Prohibition and the 'war on drugs'.
Inconsistent and bad immigration laws and all sorts of mandated labor costs motivate slave labor in the US.
Muggings flourished in NYC when the cops didn't enforce the law and when it was illegal or difficult for people to defend themselves making popular vigilante movies like Death Wish and Dirty Harry.

The govt claims to be protecting people with FDA rules but it kept a heart valve out of the USA for over 4 years while people died and those same misplaced laws are driving medical device manufacturers out of the country.
"This is an all too familiar story, the FDA impeding useful innovations in the U.S."
http://www.aei.or...e/104216
PinkElephant
not rated yet Oct 05, 2011
crime flourishes when the reward (profit) is greater than the risk
What risk is there under a limited govt?
High cigarette taxes motivates black markets
What about heroin, meth, or crack? Taxes too high on those, as well?
because of Prohibition and the 'war on drugs'
Legalization of pot and LSD is one thing; legalization of meth or crack is something else. Are you for legalization of ALL drugs?
mandated labor costs motivate slave labor
Ever read 'Grapes of Wrath'? I didn't think so... What 'mandated labor costs' exist on the strawberry fields of CA or the orange orchards in FL? This is what happens when employers are left to their own devices: they seek the cheapest labor possible. And guess what: slave labor is the cheapest you can get.
the cops didn't enforce the law
Limited govt. just like you want.
illegal or difficult for people to defend themselves
In Iraq, or Somalia, or Colombia, or Nicaragua?
FDA
Does no good whatsoever, AT ALL?
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (1) Oct 05, 2011
What about heroin, meth, or crack?

They are banned by the govt, but people still want them.
I don't want to 'legalize' any drug. I want to decriminalize all drugs. Legalization puts the govt in the position of being responsible leading to a tax on products it knows are harmful. Decriminalization puts the responsibility upon the individual, AND would enable an independent means for certification of quality and purity.
Of course I have read Grapes of Wrath. Of course employers seek the lowest cost labor (not the same as cheapest). But when govt mandates minimum wages, farmers switch from hand picked crops to machine harvested crops. That is what happened in NW Washington.
Why do think keeping slaves is cheaper than paying independent people a wage and letting them take care of themselves? Strawberry growers in NW WA used to pay by the flat, not the hour.
First rule of medicine, do no harm. Does the FDA 'do no harm'? They screw up individuals die. But why do collectivists car
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (1) Oct 05, 2011
Slave labor is supported by the democrats because they want slaves, people dependent upon the state, for their party.
They want these slaves (aka illegal immigrants) to vote for democrats who will toss them a few scraps while those in power, the politicians and the pinky ring union bosses live high.
Now I support allowing anyone into the USA who wants to work or start a business. This would open the door to Indians, Filipinos, Europeans, Chinese, Koreans, etc who want the opportunities.
Of course under BHO, most are now leaving because the USA is killing opportunity.
There was funny editorial a while back about Mexico reclaiming Los Angeles and all the Mexicans in LA were running north to escape.
PinkElephant
not rated yet Oct 05, 2011
Decriminalization puts the responsibility upon the individual, AND would enable an independent means for certification of quality and purity.
You've never been to a town hollowed out by meth addiction before, have you? Probably never even heard of one...
when govt mandates minimum wages, farmers switch from hand picked crops to machine harvested crops
If that were so, they wouldn't be hiring illegal immigrants by the millions.
Why do think keeping slaves is cheaper than paying independent people a wage and letting them take care of themselves
Because there's hardly any daylight between subsistence wages and slavery. Either way, only just barely (if at all) enough money is dispensed to keep the (wage) slave fed and clothed, and working their ass off on the plantation.
Does the FDA 'do no harm'? They screw up individuals die.
They prevent more screw-ups by industry and wannabe snake-oil salesmen, than they let slip by. BTW even then it's not FDA who screwed up.
PinkElephant
not rated yet Oct 05, 2011
Slave labor is supported by the democrats because they want slaves
Or, because they believe all people need representation, especially those too poor and oppressed to speak up on their own.
They want these slaves (aka illegal immigrants) to vote for democrats
Whereas republicans want them to vote for republicans. So what?
I support allowing anyone into the USA who wants to work or start a business
So do I.
under BHO, most are now leaving because the USA is killing opportunity
Who are these "most"? Illegal immigrants are leaving Republican states cracking down on them. Many high-tech workers who want to get in, can't due to H1B and other visa restrictions and barriers put up since 9/11, and it wasn't BHO who set these barriers up: it was GWB.

And any call for lifting visa restrictions, increasing immigration quotas, or boosting funding to the INS and US consulates abroad to let them catch up with backlogs, immediately runs into "conservative" opposition.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (1) Oct 05, 2011
"Labor unions have made opposition to existing temporary worker programs like H-2 visa a focal point of their consensu immigrtion position."
http://www.migrat...isas.pdf
PinkElephant
not rated yet Oct 05, 2011
"Labor unions have made opposition to existing temporary worker programs like H-2 visa a focal point of their consensu immigrtion position."
http://www.migrat...isas.pdf
And the reason why is explained in the Introduction section, on page 1 of your own quoted source (whom you obviously never bothered to actually read, as usual):

"Labor market immigration policy must balance two main goals: supporting economic growth and competitiveness (including finding ways to recruit and attract global talent) WHILE PROTECTING THE WAGES AND INTERESTS OF US WORKERS."

- emphasis mine

Shakescene21
not rated yet Oct 05, 2011
"I think we need a new intellectual framework to describe some of these Asian economic systems.

Why? If those oriental 'virtues' were so great, why didn't China rule the world centuries ago?"

@ryggesoqn -- I was commenting that the Chinese economic system doesn't fit well into our scheme for classifying economic systems, partly because the Chinese often have a different world-view than Americans. I was not necessarily saying that their system was great, and I definitely wouldn't want to trade places.
Shakescene21
not rated yet Oct 05, 2011
"I think we need a new intellectual framework to describe some of these Asian economic systems.

Why? If those oriental 'virtues' were so great, why didn't China rule the world centuries ago?"

@ryggesoqn -- I was commenting that the Chinese economic system doesn't fit well into our scheme for classifying economic systems, partly because the Chinese often have a different world-view than Americans. I was not necessarily saying that their system was great, and I definitely wouldn't want to trade places.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (1) Oct 05, 2011
I was commenting that the Chinese economic system doesn't fit well into our scheme for classifying economic systems,

Socialism describes the Chinese economic system quite well.

But Pinky, you asserted it was conservatives who were opposed to increasing legal immigration. Since when are labor unions conservative?
PinkElephant
not rated yet Oct 05, 2011
Socialism describes the Chinese economic system quite well.
Corporate Fascism describes it better -- at least in those provinces that have been turned into "enterprise zones".
you asserted it was conservatives who were opposed to increasing legal immigration
I asserted conservatives are opposed to increased funding to INS and consulates to let them cope with their huge visa backlogs, that conservatives are opposed to eliminating the many unnecessary and onerous barriers to entry put up following 9/11, and I dare you to deny that a large contingent of "social conservatives" views any influx of foreign immigrants as a threat to their culture.
Since when are labor unions conservative?
Unions are not opposed to immigration in general.

They are opposed to the type of immigration that fires a qualified and capable American worker, only to fill his position with a severely underpaid immigrant worker, who is "owned" by the company until he/she finally gets the green card.
PinkElephant
not rated yet Oct 06, 2011
Ahhh, Free Trade at its best:

http://thecnnfree...ss-asia/

Isn't that just endearing and oh so inspiring? Brings a tear to my eye, it does.
rawa1
1 / 5 (1) Oct 06, 2011
The problem with cold fusion is, it's actually economically less significant business, than the fossil fuel business. Because I you find the very cheap process, which produces energy and it's very easy to imitate, you cannot make too much money about it - it's like the selling of bottled air.

In this way, our civilization could die of energy starvation, albeit we are sitting on the pile of energy, because we have no economical mechanisms, how to motivate people in its utilization.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (1) Oct 06, 2011
Corporate Fascism

Fascism is socialism.

Huge visa backlogs are due to quotas, and due to the State Dept making excuses for NOT wanting to be in the business of processing visas.
Ever been to a US consulate to process a visa?
PinkElephant
not rated yet Oct 06, 2011
Fascism is socialism.
I suggest you educate yourself, first by reading the definition of Fascism:

http://en.wikiped.../Fascism

and then by reading the definition of Socialism:

http://en.wikiped...ocialism

As always, it would help immensely if you did not remain so utterly ignorant regarding the very issues you seek to discuss.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (2) Oct 06, 2011
I use more authoritative sources like Mussolini, the creator of Fascism, and Mises's "Socialism".

Those who quibble about the flavor of socialism must be an advocate for one of those flavors.

Is that why you call yourself 'Pink' Pinky?
PinkElephant
not rated yet Oct 06, 2011
I use more authoritative sources like Mussolini, the creator of Fascism, and Mises's "Socialism".
As I mentioned before, what people like to call themselves does not always correspond to what they truly are. Your sources are not authoritative, and moreover they are useless and inaccurate since they can't distinguish two such radically different concepts.
Those who quibble about the flavor of socialism must be an advocate for one of those flavors.
In your cartoony mind there's only socialism and anarchy, with nothing in between. It must suck living in your world, because while the world is chock-full of nations that are socialist to various degrees (and very few of which are even remotely fascist), the ones featuring your ideal social and economic order can be counted on one hand's fingers and are, without exception, hell holes.
Is that why you call yourself 'Pink' Pinky?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seeing_pink_elephants
hush1
not rated yet Oct 06, 2011
Long commentary. Hmm. Four letters words...
Free?
Fair?
Longer words...
Balanced. Trade.
Let me read the article first...got caught in the undertow of commentary.
Stick to quotes soggy. Otherwise people get the impression you are free to express yourself.
hush1
not rated yet Oct 06, 2011
O.k. Read the article. Jennifer? Can I exchange this article for another one. Wrong size. Doesn't fit. Everyone's feet hurt here.

Soggy. Brain teaser before I go:
The difference between socialism and sociology.
Remember we spend a entire 200 plus post thread on this.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (1) Oct 06, 2011
What is radically different between socialism and Fascism? Both use the power of the state to control private property.
Fascism was readily adopted by Germans in the 20s as they were already socialists.
PinkElephant
not rated yet Oct 06, 2011
What is radically different between socialism and Fascism?
Read the bleepin' definitions I've linked for you above, and find out.
Both use the power of the state to control private property.
Humans and earthworms are both animals. What's so radically different about them?
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (2) Oct 06, 2011
Again, why does it matter who runs the state if that state wants to take your property?
Unless, maybe, Pinky likes some form of socialism but doesn't like being put in the same category with fascists.
Democrats and unions are supporting the communists protesting Wall Street while those same democrats are soliciting and accepting donations from Wall Street.
PinkElephant
not rated yet Oct 06, 2011
Again, why does it matter who runs the state if that state wants to take your property?
Again, read the bleepin' definitions I've linked for you above, and find out.
rawa1
1 / 5 (1) Oct 07, 2011
What is radically different between socialism and Fascism?
They're extreme, mixed state. You can observe the water surface with its transverse waves at wide range of wavelengths. But at the extremely long or short wavelength the ripples will disperse into underwater heavily. What's important here, these two extreme cases are geometrically similar. Analogously, the Universe appears at the quantum and cosmological scales in similar way, just the measure of interactions differs in many orders of magnitude.

Most of stable causal space of stable society is represented with gradient of less and dense phases, which correspond the democratic and conservative parties in 1:1 ratio. IMO communists and fascists correspond the particles of matter and antimatter with opposite curvatures and they annihilate mutually in direct contact, despite their behaviour is similar with respect to the rest of society, like at the case of electron - positron pairs.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (2) Oct 07, 2011
Fascsim, socialism, communism are all systems of govt that do not respect and protect private property rights. All property is conrolled by the state either through direct ownership (General Motors) or by regualtory controls (Federal Reserve, Freddie, Fannie).
"Fascism advocates a state-directed, regulated economy "
Socialism: "...centrally planned economies directed by a single-party state that owns the means of production. "

All are OPPOSED to free markets and private property.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (2) Oct 07, 2011
Socialists are opposed to free markets and property rights until they recognize their system is leading them to economic collapse. Then they loosen thier grip, a little, to allow some wealth to be created so the state won't collape.
Even Sweden has had to end their tax on wealth, among other anti-socialist concepts, to keep from collapsing.
hush1
not rated yet Oct 07, 2011
http://www.visual...country/

"Sweden has the most even distribution of income distribution of any nation"

hush1
not rated yet Oct 07, 2011
About the Mises Institute
Mises.org

You have found the world center of the Austrian School of economics and libertarian political and social theory.

For god sake, Adolf, wipe that fascist smirk off your postmortem Austrian face.

Soggy's Sprachrohr
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (2) Oct 07, 2011
Austrian school economic theories have been validated by history.

"Sweden has the most even distribution of income distribution of any nation"

Sweden must not believe this to be too important as they abolished their tax on wealth to attract wealthy Swedes to return to Sweden.
hush1
5 / 5 (1) Oct 07, 2011
Austrian school economic theories have been validated by history. - R2

lol

"and the winners are......?!? Woohoooo. Go team go!
(Historians are the name of my team, great team, great bunch, never once losing or failing to validate a history for anyone's agenda. God hands alone wrote the Bible, not a chance in hell to tweak that one. Best you let that dog sleep. Of course you will reflect on Churchill's quote over history written by winners.)

Sweden must not believe... - R2


lol
The last time I ,as a German, told Swedes what to believe was during the war. Did you replace us? We Germans tax the hell out of ourselves - to no avail. The Swedes make us look like we are the No. 1 tax haven in world. Yes, wealthy Swedes. (Returning from Germany.)
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (2) Oct 09, 2011
This will make some 'progressive' heads explode.
A common 'progressive' bumper sticker is 'Free Tibet' and many 'progressives' seemed to be impressed by Chinese communism.

"China is built on lies and its officials are hypocrites, the Dalai Lama said on Saturday, speaking via videophone after visa problems prevented him from joining Archbishop Desmond Tutu's birthday celebrations in South Africa."
"In reality, for the communist totalitarian system ... hypocrisy (and) telling lies has unfortunately become part of their lives."
http://www.reuter...20111008
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (2) Oct 20, 2011
"The manufacturing skills gap continues to grow, with more employers citing difficulty finding skilled workers to fill key positions and remain competitive, according to new research.

Despite a high national unemployment rate and the availability of a wide range of training and certification programs, United States manufacturers are struggling to find skilled workers to fill key positions. This widening skills gap is approaching critical levels, threatening manufacturers' competitiveness and hurting their chances at success in the market.

U.S. manufacturing companies are facing a workforce shortage for as many as 600,000 positions, according to a new survey from Deloitte and the Manufacturing Institute. Based on a national poll of 1,123 manufacturing executives, the survey found that 5 percent of current manufacturing jobs are unfilled due to a lack of qualified candidates."
http://news.thoma...T.mc_t=b
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (2) Oct 20, 2011
How many of the 'occupiers' would be qualified for these USA manufacturing jobs?

""These unfilled jobs are mainly in the skilled production category positions such as machinists, operators, craft workers, distributors and technicians," Emily DeRocco, president of the Manufacturing Institute, said in an announcement of the results. "Unfortunately, these jobs require the most training and are traditionally among the hardest manufacturing jobs to find existing talent to fill.""
"The low regard that younger workers have for manufacturing jobs may be exacerbating the skills gap, as manufacturing ranked last among industries in which 18 to 24 year-olds would choose to start a career. "

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.