• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

GE moving X-ray business to China

We can't keep promising tax cuts either... eventually we are going to have to pay back what we have borrowed.

We take in enough to pay back what we have borrowed.

Yes, people need to make sacrifices, but we shouldn't sacrifice innovation and investing in our own country. The parties are trying to wage one class against the other. The government is entirely dysfunction, and that's a major problem in and of itself. We need to have a grown up talk about spending cuts and investments. Simply attacking all spending is being blind, because that's is just leading to class warfare accusations from both sides.

Nobody attacks all spending.
 
I think that most Americans realize that spending needs to be cut, and revenue needs to be raised. But the devil is in the details, i.e., where it should be cut and how it should be raised.

As far as protectionism goes, the bottom line is that it doesn't work. Sure, you can slap tariffs on foreign products to make domestic products more competitive -- in this country. But that will only result in other countries slapping tariffs on American products. That's not such a great deal for American companies, given the fact that the fastest growing markets are all foreign markets. One of the few bright spots in the economy is manufacturing, but much of that strength is being driven by exports (see Caterpillar, for example). Of course protectionism is also incredibly inflationary.

Beyond that, offshoring of jobs isn't the main driver of unemployment. Automation is the main driver. If you have a Chinese company employing 1000 drones to assemble widgets, and you impose a tariff to move production here, an American company isn't going to pay 1000 people to make the same widgets. They may employ 50 to run the automated assembly line.

Spending has to be cut. Thats it. There is no need to raise taxes. The government brings in huge amounts of dollars every day.

Either the will is there to balance the budget or not, and the consequences of not doing so are clear.

Americans decided that they wanted a symbolic President than the real deal.

Okay, you've proved to the world you're not racists. Now you should demonstrate you're not idiots.
 
America was built up through tariffs on foreign goods

Except for a period of time in the 1920's and post WW2 tariffs in the US were a mainstay of federal government income, and helped ensure US domestic industries developed during the 1800

America was the growing economy at that time. It's no longer the case. Places like India and China are.
 
We take in enough to pay back what we have borrowed.
There is enough money coming in. Lets keep in mind that over 90% of Americans are still reported to be employed. It just needs the political will.
 
America was the growing economy at that time. It's no longer the case. Places like India and China are.

They're just growing more rapidly because they were so far behind, and the reason for their growth was the liberalization of their economies.

A free people with free trade can do wondrous things because, as the term implies, people are free to trade what is a betterment to themselves and their conditions.
 
America was built up through tariffs on foreign goods

Trade: Chapter 20-3: US Tariff Policy: Historical Notes


20img5.gif


Except for a period of time in the 1920's and post WW2 tariffs in the US were a mainstay of federal government income, and helped ensure US domestic industries developed during the 1800

Many countries rely on tariffs as a form of sales tax.
 
I don't discount the difference commodities have made and part of the Canadian boom has been the American reluctance to drill for oil, thereby making Canada their major supplier.

It's also wise you added (not yet) to the Canadian Real Estate market. It could be argued that American housing is closer to genuine market value than Canadian prices. The Canadian real estate market is unrealistically high only through government manipulation, not as a result of the actual marketplace.

Free trade is good for everyone, the manufacturer and the consumer. There is no long term successful alternative.

The US is only reluctant to drill in two areas, Anwar, and certain parts of the off shore (California coast, Florida coast) The US is drilling like mad in North Dakota, the north eastern US (ie New York, Penn)

Can housing prices are outrageous compared to the US. The squatter home in Texas which I believe was stated to be worth $300 000 would be a $700 000 home in Calgary. A $300 000 home in Calgary is a small starter home or a nice condo outside of the downtown core. The Can government, and the BoC are hoping to maintain home prices, and hopefully not see a colllapse. At least most Canadians were required to put a larger downpayment on their homes, which will ensure more Canadians will not just walk away and allow for foreclosure if possible



The US produces 9 million or so barrels of oil a day, it is in the top 3 producers, the problem is not that the US is not drilling, the problem is that the US does not have the reserves to drill to make much of a real difference. When you use 18 million ( down a couple of million from its high) and have rather small economical reserves compared to what is being used on a regular basis, you are going to have to import alot of oil.

As for free trade, it can be good it can be bad, it depends on the state of the economy, and the population. Total free trade in Canada would mean the only people making any real money would be in the resource sector. Manufacturing would be a minor player, any secondary processing of raw materials would be unlikely to occur, and the standard of living for a large number of Canadians would decrease, while those in the resource sector would increase. With a small population where the majority of people can be employed in the resource sector, that could be a good thing. A larger population ( but not large enough to make our domestic markets large enough to support domestic manufacturing for domestic usage) total free trade would be a negative for Canada. The Can auto industry was not built through free trade, but managed trade, the majority of manufacturing in Canada has been built through managed trade. Realistically the only manufacturing that would occur in Canada on a significant basis would be to support our resource sector with total free trade. The US was built on the backs of tariffs, increasing the competitivenes of US business. Japan, South Korea, Taiwan and now China have been built or are building based on managed trade (Toyota, Honda, and Hyundai would not exist with free trade)

Overall free trade is fine between developed economies of a similar development status and roughly equivalent standards of living. Or if part of the free trade agreement also includes the labour market. Allowing for the labour to move freely between the countries to compete within each others labour markets
 
Last edited:
Many countries rely on tariffs as a form of sales tax.

And many countries use them to help develop domestic industries (if not to protect them)
 
They're just growing more rapidly because they were so far behind, and the reason for their growth was the liberalization of their economies.

Sure, I don't disagree.

A free people with free trade can do wondrous things because, as the term implies, people are free to trade what is a betterment to themselves and their conditions.

Unfortunately, not all things are done in black and white. China is happy to take a loss right now to gain market share.
 
Sure, I don't disagree.



Unfortunately, not all things are done in black and white. China is happy to take a loss right now to gain market share.

The Chinese are willing to work long and hard now to ensure they have a better future, and that their childern have a better future. They save a huge portion of their incomes to pay for better education for their childern, potential health care problems and for retirement. They have to save that money because they do not have a good social safety net other then family. Meaning most are not the type of consumers that we see in North America or parts of Europe. Some of the younger Chinese are different and do consume goods as much as North Americans do, but most still have to work hard and save alot. It is not so much about market share, but the willingness to work hard and save money, rather then work and spend money like most in the west
 
Sure, I don't disagree.



Unfortunately, not all things are done in black and white. China is happy to take a loss right now to gain market share.

Then it stops becoming free trade and becomes 'dumping'. That's illegal.
 
The Chinese are willing to work long and hard now to ensure they have a better future, and that their childern have a better future. They save a huge portion of their incomes to pay for better education for their childern, potential health care problems and for retirement. They have to save that money because they do not have a good social safety net other then family. Meaning most are not the type of consumers that we see in North America or parts of Europe. Some of the younger Chinese are different and do consume goods as much as North Americans do, but most still have to work hard and save alot. It is not so much about market share, but the willingness to work hard and save money, rather then work and spend money like most in the west

I'm living in Vancouver right now which. as you probably know, has many Chinese.

One of them was telling me that Canada is third world when it comes to business. They can't understand why businesses close at 5pm or that offices aren't open 24 hours a day, or not rented out in shifts.

They live, at least in parts, ia 24 hour world, while we still think in 8 hour terms,

Success is usually the result of hard work and initiative. They are learning lessons we seem to have forgotten.
 
In fact, I have seen many studies that say Wal Mart greatly contributes to our trade deficit because they import some many goods from China. Furthermore, outsourcing is a huge part of the free trade ideology.

Wal-Mart's central business model is a discount superstore. It aims to offer its consumers the lowest prices and, to a very large extent, succeeds in achieving that goal. To have a chance to realize that goal, it needs to minimize its costs through economies of scale, low overhead, low-cost products. American suppliers have not been able to compete with numerous international suppliers. Hence, it makes sense for Wal-Mart to leverage its global reach to obtain the lowest price goods.

High-end retailers have the luxury to compete on differentiation. Differentiation allows them to pass on higher costs to their customer base so long as customers value differentiation to the extent that they are willing to pay for it. Not every customer takes that approach. Otherwise, the discount superstore model would not be viable.
 
I'm living in Vancouver right now which. as you probably know, has many Chinese.

One of them was telling me that Canada is third world when it comes to business. They can't understand why businesses close at 5pm or that offices aren't open 24 hours a day, or not rented out in shifts.

They live, at least in parts, ia 24 hour world, while we still think in 8 hour terms,

Success is usually the result of hard work and initiative. They are learning lessons we seem to have forgotten.


It does come down to a trade off, of what you can gain, and what you can lose from working so hard and for so long.

Canada and the US both have good social safety nets, and both countries have reasonable standards of living, that will ensure most have all their basic needs covered and then some. Only those that are truely dropouts of society will suffer by living on the streets (from drug addicts to those with mental illness's). Everyone else despite losing their job, or suffering from a major illness will have at least their basic needs covered. This does allow for most people to have significant free time to do with as they wish (although it is often wasted as well). Would I want to work the 12-14 hours a day 6 to 7 days a week that some Chinese factory workers have to, by god know. The gains that I would get, would definately not outweigh the loses I would have. If I had my own business, where success was determined by the long hours, and would potentially allow for a significant increase in my wealth and income then yes I probably would. But not as a hourly worker or salaried employee
 
Wal-Mart's central business model is a discount superstore. It aims to offer its consumers the lowest prices and, to a very large extent, succeeds in achieving that goal. To have a chance to realize that goal, it needs to minimize its costs through economies of scale, low overhead, low-cost products. American suppliers have not been able to compete with numerous international suppliers. Hence, it makes sense for Wal-Mart to leverage its global reach to obtain the lowest price goods.

High-end retailers have the luxury to compete on differentiation. Differentiation allows them to pass on higher costs to their customer base so long as customers value differentiation to the extent that they are willing to pay for it. Not every customer takes that approach. Otherwise, the discount superstore model would not be viable.

High end retailers also do not tend to source products from the US. With Europe being the dominate force in luxury goods. The Euro brands dominate that market world wide. The US has tended to be a mid market player in consumer goods, and the mid market outide of autos and homes is a shrinking market. The emerging markets go for a combination of the low end goods and the high end goods. Or stuff that is durable and high quality for certain goods ( homes and home furnishing in China suprised me to no end on how good they were)
 
A new president won't change it... The country is divided.

IMO, a transformational leader could boost American morale and psychology. However, the comparative advantages that underlie patterns of trade are not solely a function of Presidential leadership or public policy. They depend on big factors such as technological evolution, demographics/workforce productivity, etc., that are largely outside the ability of the President or public policy to truly influence. Policy investments that could yield dividends down the road would concern dramatic improvements in the nation's education system, a credible energy policy that creates incentives for the nation to become a leader in emerging energy sources, etc. A transformational leader could increase prospects for such policy approaches. Unfortunately, such leaders are not common. Few leaders have the capability to truly align public support to the extent that FDR, JFK, and Reagan did. IMO, neither the President nor the Congressional leaders (Reid, McConnell, Boehner, Pelosi) fit the bill of transformational leaders. Amidst the current Republican field, it does not appear that there are any transformational leaders, either. At the State level, it is too early to tell, but both Governor Cuomo and Governor Christie have displayed some traits of transformational leadership, but their tenure to date is too short to draw any firm conclusions as to whether they actually are transformational leaders.
 
IMO, a transformational leader could boost American morale and psychology. However, the comparative advantages that underlie patterns of trade are not solely a function of Presidential leadership or public policy. They depend on big factors such as technological evolution, demographics/workforce productivity, etc., that are largely outside the ability of the President or public policy to truly influence. Policy investments that could yield dividends down the road would concern dramatic improvements in the nation's education system, a credible energy policy that creates incentives for the nation to become a leader in emerging energy sources, etc. A transformational leader could increase prospects for such policy approaches. Unfortunately, such leaders are not common. Few leaders have the capability to truly align public support to the extent that FDR, JFK, and Reagan did. IMO, neither the President nor the Congressional leaders (Reid, McConnell, Boehner, Pelosi) fit the bill of transformational leaders. Amidst the current Republican field, it does not appear that there are any transformational leaders, either. At the State level, it is too early to tell, but both Governor Cuomo and Governor Christie have displayed some traits of transformational leadership, but their tenure to date is too short to draw any firm conclusions as to whether they actually are transformational leaders.

Transformational leadership is big in the worlds of business and education. A friend of mine who earned a PhD in Educational Leadership constructed his dissertation around a transformational leadership questionnaire, attempting to obtain information from his sample to determine effective leadership traits in a school group administrative staff.

The concept seems easy enough to understand but very difficult to obtain in politics I would think. This leadership style works by the leader sharing a common vision and inspiring others, usually those who work for you, to change expectations, perceptions and motivations to work toward common goals. The breakdown at the national level begins with no common vision for America and no leader who can help to forge one. President Obama's leadership style lately has been to blame Republicans and scare the elderly. Pointing fingers and placing blame are the antithesis of transformational leadership.
 
Last edited:
I was once on that world trade band wagon. Can't really call yourself patriotic if you support the outsourcing of American jobs and leaving us at the mercy of countries that do manufacture especially to communist countries. There is the fact that since companies are outsourcing to China they are building China up, which means china can spend more money on their military and be a bigger thread to us.

Absolutely. Anybody with a japanese TV or a chinese DVR really has no one to blame but themselves. Soon as Americans stand their ground and sacrifice the Walmart way of thinking and buy nothing without a "Made in USA" stamp on it, whenever possible, even if you have to spend a little more until we get this corrected, maybe we can fix this problem ourselves without looking to the bafoons in DC or Wall Street to fix it for us.
 
Absolutely. Anybody with a japanese TV or a chinese DVR really has no one to blame but themselves.

Not true. There are no alternatives for those items.

Soon as Americans stand their ground and sacrifice the Walmart way of thinking and buy nothing without a "Made in USA" stamp on it, whenever possible, even if you have to spend a little more until we get this corrected, maybe we can fix this problem ourselves without looking to the bafoons in DC or Wall Street to fix it for us.

I agree with this.
 
Where's the problem?

In fact it does work and history tells us so.

Most people don't support trade barriers, but the problem is the attitude in America that outsourcing manufacturing and outsourcing jobs and that it's benefiting us. We have a trade deficit. Japan and Germany do not. China doesn't either.
 
Of course. And the President of the day has played the biggest role in that.

No he hasn't. He hasn't served a full term yet... This has been going on since the Reagan administration, and the country was never more divided than when GWB was elected. It still is. Both political parties in this country are jokes.
 
Absolutely. Anybody with a japanese TV or a chinese DVR really has no one to blame but themselves. Soon as Americans stand their ground and sacrifice the Walmart way of thinking and buy nothing without a "Made in USA" stamp on it, whenever possible, even if you have to spend a little more until we get this corrected, maybe we can fix this problem ourselves without looking to the bafoons in DC or Wall Street to fix it for us.

Of course other nations could boycott American goods and services also but a trade war has never done anyone much good.
 
We take in enough to pay back what we have borrowed.



Nobody attacks all spending.

What would that entail? Shutting the government down for 5 years? Kicking everybody off of SS and medicare/medicaid?
 
No he hasn't. He hasn't served a full term yet... This has been going on since the Reagan administration, and the country was never more divided than when GWB was elected. It still is. Both political parties in this country are jokes.

George Bush might have many faults but he never used race in order to gain votes and never attacked any segment of American society.
 
Spending has to be cut. Thats it. There is no need to raise taxes. The government brings in huge amounts of dollars every day.

Either the will is there to balance the budget or not, and the consequences of not doing so are clear.

Americans decided that they wanted a symbolic President than the real deal.

Okay, you've proved to the world you're not racists. Now you should demonstrate you're not idiots.

You should mind your own damn business. We didn't need to prove we weren't racist. There was no way a republican was going to get elected in that economy. A democrat was going to be elected. It just happened that Obama, a black guy, won the nomination. If Hillary won, would you be saying it was about sexism then?
 
Back
Top Bottom