Lipinski wants "buy American" wording in job legislation

phattonez · Dec 20, 2009

EpicDude86 said:
In the long run though, bringing back jobs and industry, along with pride and a better quality of product, would be the 'good intention' of these tariffs. But let us not forget: The Road to Hell is paved with Good Intentions.

Bringing jobs back is such a strange concept. It's not as if there are a fixed number of jobs in the world. By making some goods more expensive, you've effectively just cut the real wage of everyone. Let's say that we totally eliminate steel imports. Instead of say $50 an ounce, they'll sell for maybe $100 an ounce because the scarcity has increased. The people in other countries that were exporting the goods will be poorer (unless you want to be a nationalistic zealot and say that foreigners don't matter), the people of this country will be poorer. This improves only one group: domestic steel producers. Talk about a special interest project.

jamesrage · Dec 20, 2009

Khayembii Communique said:
Just in case you thought this was a response to my point, it isn't. I asked two questions:

So if tariffs have no consequences, as you have said, then tariffs wouldn't have an effect on bolstering US production, either, as that is a consequence. All actions have consequences. Do you know what the consequences would be or not?

I am aware other countries would impose tariffs to but how would it be any different before we started outsourcing jobs to China,India and other countries?

What affect do you think protectionist policies had on the lead-up to WW1?

We outsourcing American jobs left and right to China, India and other countries before WWI?

Your argument seems to be let companies outsource and what ever things we might still manufacture might get sold to those other countries but most likely we will not have anything to export or discouraging outsourcing and what ever is made here may or may not be sold to overseas countries. In other words damned if we do and damned if we don't? I would rather that we made our own things than be dependent on other countries for things.

jamesrage · Dec 20, 2009

phattonez said:
Bringing jobs back is such a strange concept.

They left,We want them back (or at least other companies here in the US to take their place). Why does that seem like a strange concept to bring them back(or at least other companies here in the US to take their place)?

The people in other countries that were exporting the goods will be poorer (unless you want to be a nationalistic zealot and say that foreigners don't matter), the people of this country will be poorer. This improves only one group: domestic steel producers. Talk about a special interest project.

It is not the government's jobs to provide jobs for other countries.If they are going to provide jobs it should be the citizens they were elected to represent. Last time I checked no Chinese, Indian or some other foreign citizen citizen voted for Clinton,Bush, Obama or any other politician. I do not give a **** if the people in China, India or any other country gets poorer, **** them.I do not want people in my country getting poorer or my country having to depend on other countries to make things for us because the traitors in office tossed the salad(oral anal sex) of businesses whose only loyalty is to their pockets.

EpicDude86 · Dec 20, 2009

phattonez said:
Bringing jobs back is such a strange concept. It's not as if there are a fixed number of jobs in the world. By making some goods more expensive, you've effectively just cut the real wage of everyone. Let's say that we totally eliminate steel imports. Instead of say $50 an ounce, they'll sell for maybe $100 an ounce because the scarcity has increased. The people in other countries that were exporting the goods will be poorer (unless you want to be a nationalistic zealot and say that foreigners don't matter), the people of this country will be poorer. This improves only one group: domestic steel producers. Talk about a special interest project.

I'm not talking about totally eliminating imports, I'm talking about American corporations opening up shop in...I dunno..America. If we got rid of minimum wage I'm sure that'd help. Then the **** jobs can get paid **** wages. A **** wage is better than no wage.

WTPPolitics · Dec 20, 2009

Put tarrifs on goods and then there will be tarrifs on American goods that are exported elsewhere. Obama tried to do it with tires. He put a tarrif of Chinese tires. So, the Chinese turned around and put a tarrif on American chickens (there's a big chicken business in China). Sure, this whole "buy American" stuff might sound appealing, but it benefits the businesses only. The average consumer loses in the end.

If you want businesses to come back to America, cut costs to them that are imposed by the bloody government. The government makes it so damn unreasonable to run a business in America that it is better to base your business elsewhere. The answer is not to make huge tarrifs on foreign profits. The answer is to make it more profitable to do business in the United States.

As for caring about other countries. You should care about other countries just like a business man would care about customers. If a country is not successful, they are not buying your goods and therefore, you're losing out on profits. If you want jobs to come back to America, start a grassroots effort to have Americans spend more money to buy a product made in America and then the jobs will come back to America. Any other attempt is going to benefit the businesses and not the average American.

phattonez · Dec 20, 2009

EpicDude86 said:
I'm not talking about totally eliminating imports, I'm talking about American corporations opening up shop in...I dunno..America. If we got rid of minimum wage I'm sure that'd help. Then the **** jobs can get paid **** wages. A **** wage is better than no wage.

I'd just want the free market option. I totally agree with you that getting rid of minimum wage and foregoing bills that increase union strength by infringing on voluntary associations would be great.

EpicDude86 · Dec 20, 2009

phattonez said:
I'd just want the free market option. I totally agree with you that getting rid of minimum wage and foregoing bills that increase union strength by infringing on voluntary associations would be great.

Yeah, something like not FORCING what is thought to be right or fair, just keeping a high level of freedom with close monitoring and fail-safe systems or regulations and the market will work itself out.

phattonez · Dec 20, 2009

jamesrage said:
They left,We want them back (or at least other companies here in the US to take their place). Why does that seem like a strange concept to bring them back(or at least other companies here in the US to take their place)?

Jobs don't leave. If you had a job worth $50,000 a year and then a foreigner takes your place for $25,000 it means that your job was overvalued. Outsourcing helps us to bring the value of jobs to their real levels.

It is not the government's jobs to provide jobs for other countries.If they are going to provide jobs it should be the citizens they were elected to represent. Last time I checked no Chinese, Indian or some other foreign citizen citizen voted for Clinton,Bush, Obama or any other politician. I do not give a **** if the people in China, India or any other country gets poorer, **** them.I do not want people in my country getting poorer or my country having to depend on other countries to make things for us because the traitors in office tossed the salad(oral anal sex) of businesses whose only loyalty is to their pockets.

Where do you get this stuff from? Companies outsource to get YOU a better price. Companies focus on the consumer because the consumers are where they get their money from. If you want to help the producers then by all means overpay a company. I doubt you'll do that though.

Khayembii Communique · Dec 20, 2009

jamesrage said:
I am aware other countries would impose tariffs to but how would it be any different before we started outsourcing jobs to China,India and other countries?

Why do you think "outsourcing" started happening when it did?

Your argument seems to be let companies outsource and what ever things we might still manufacture might get sold to those other countries but most likely we will not have anything to export or discouraging outsourcing and what ever is made here may or may not be sold to overseas countries.

Actually my argument is simply that protectionist policies harm both national and international markets and cause economic conflict which leads to military conflict on a massive scale. This is pretty thoroughly supported by history (which is why I was referring to WW1).

jamesrage · Dec 21, 2009

phattonez said:
Jobs don't leave.

Yes they do, its called outsourcing. Which is why people are against outsourcing.

If you had a job worth $50,000 a year and then a foreigner takes your place for $25,000 it means that your job was overvalued.

No it means A company found a cheaper labor supply. It does not mean the job was overvalued. It just means a company wishes to increase its profit margin.

Outsourcing helps us to bring the value of jobs to their real levels.

So your saying American wages should be based on Chinese,Mexican, Indian or what ever has the lowest wages? What a load of crap. Wages just like consumer products are based on supply and demand.

Where do you get this stuff from? Companies outsource to get YOU a better price.Companies focus on the consumer because the consumers are where they get their money from.

Companies outsource to increase their profit margins not get you a better deal.

phattonez · Dec 21, 2009

jamesrage said:
Yes they do, its called outsourcing. Which is why people are against outsourcing.

No it means A company found a cheaper labor supply. It does not mean the job was overvalued. It just means a company wishes to increase its profit margin.

Enough. What's so evil about profit?

So your saying American wages should be based on Chinese,Mexican, Indian or what ever has the lowest wages? What a load of crap. Wages just like consumer products are based on supply and demand.

Yeah, so why artificially decrease the supply and increase prices? That's a good idea to you?

Companies outsource to increase their profit margins not get you a better deal.

They increase their profit margins by getting you a better deal.

jamesrage · Dec 21, 2009

Khayembii Communique said:
Why do you think "outsourcing" started happening when it did?

Lower tariffs/taxes made it possible for companies to increase their profit margin by exploiting a significantly cheaper labor force to make products.

Actually my argument is simply that protectionist policies harm both national and international markets and cause economic conflict which leads to military conflict on a massive scale.

Where any wars really started because products from a another country more expensive that locally produced goods? I know globalist like to use fear mongering to support outsourcing but that just seems way overboard compared to the usual fear mongering by globalists.

This is pretty thoroughly supported by history (which is why I was referring to WW1).

I was under the impression that an assassination,arms race, territorial disputes and other factors started WWI. Who knew that it was tariffs that started WWI(sarcasm).

phattonez · Dec 21, 2009

jamesrage said:
Lower tariffs/taxes made it possible for companies to increase their profit margin by exploiting a significantly cheaper labor force to make products.

They're exploited huh? Whatever happened to freedom of association? Aren't these people choosing to work there?

Where any wars really started because products from a another country more expensive that locally produced goods? I know globalist like to use fear mongering to support outsourcing but that just seems way overboard compared to the usual fear mongering by globalists.

Wars have been started over trade disputes, you know, tariffs?

I was under the impression that an assassination,arms race, territorial disputes and other factors started WWI. Who knew that it was tariffs that started WWI(sarcasm).

The US got into WWI precisely because of trade.

jamesrage · Dec 21, 2009

phattonez said:
Enough. What's so evil about profit?

I never said profit was evil. Where have I said profit was evil? Can you show me the post where I said that?

Yeah, so why artificially decrease the supply and increase prices? That's a good idea to you?

If a company outsources they are not decreasing wage for that particular job because it is outsourced to another country. How can you decrease a wage for a particual job if it no longer there in that country? IF we are going to pay people what someone if a 3rd world or communist dictatorship makes then what should your job pay when you get out of school?

They increase their profit margins by getting you a better deal.

Companies increase their profit margins to make more money,not save you a few bucks.Companies does not give a **** about you.

jamesrage · Dec 21, 2009

phattonez said:
They're exploited huh?

To make use of unfairly.

Whatever happened to freedom of association?

What does tariffs have to do with 1st amendment rights?

Aren't these people choosing to work there?

Considering the fact we are talking about China who knows.

Wars have been started over trade disputes, you know, tariffs?

Which wars were specially started over tariffs?

The US got into WWI precisely because of trade.

I think the history book you used in school must have had a guy wearing a tin foil hat on the cover along with a picture of Area 51 and bigfoot on the back of it. US involvement in WWI started over unrestricted German submarine warfare subs on ships carrying American civilians and the Zimmermann Telegram.

phattonez · Dec 21, 2009

jamesrage said:
To make use of unfairly.

And who decides what fair is?

What does tariffs have to do with 1st amendment rights?

You can choose to work with someone or not. No one forces you.

Considering the fact we are talking about China who knows.

As far as we know it's free choice so it's fine.

Which wars were specially started over tariffs?

American entry into WWI.

I think the history book you used in school must have had a guy wearing a tin foil hat on the cover along with a picture of Area 51 and bigfoot on the back of it.

That's intellectual maturity.

US involvement in WWI started over unrestricted German submarine warfare subs on ships carrying American civilians and the Zimmermann Telegram.

Why did those things happen? Exactly.

phattonez · Dec 21, 2009

jamesrage said:
I never said profit was evil. Where have I said profit was evil? Can you show me the post where I said that?

You're making it sound like companies are doing wrong for trying to increase their profit margin.

If a company outsources they are not decreasing wage for that particular job because it is outsourced to another country. How can you decrease a wage for a particual job if it no longer there in that country? IF we are going to pay people what someone if a 3rd world or communist dictatorship makes then what should your job pay when you get out of school?

If you're getting an education you'll hopefully have more skills than someone in a 3rd world country.

Companies increase their profit margins to make more money,not save you a few bucks.Companies does not give a **** about you.

Except that they have to in order to make a profit.

Khayembii Communique · Dec 21, 2009

jamesrage said:
I was under the impression that an assassination,arms race, territorial disputes and other factors started WWI. Who knew that it was tariffs that started WWI(sarcasm).

The buildup to WW1 started with the uneven development of capitalism in Europe, which led to protectionist policies designed to help nurture growing national economies and eventually led to economic trade zones, which the world powers eventually came into conflict over due to the inability of capital to find new avenues of investment because of it. World War 1 happened because the major powers were fighting over control of markets and avenues of investment because there were no longer any unclaimed markets to conquer.

phattonez · Dec 21, 2009

Khayembii Communique said:
The buildup to WW1 started with the uneven development of capitalism in Europe, which led to protectionist policies designed to help nurture growing national economies and eventually led to economic trade zones, which the world powers eventually came into conflict over due to the inability of capital to find new avenues of investment because of it. World War 1 happened because the major powers were fighting over control of markets and avenues of investment because there were no longer any unclaimed markets to conquer.

Kind of off-topic, but do you think that this was inevitable because of the way the countries developed or just because of the tariffs that were instituted?

jamesrage · Dec 21, 2009

phattonez said:
And who decides what fair is?.

Paying someone significantly less for the same amount of work would be unfair. If your job you planned to get after you finished school started paying you what someone doing the same job in Mexico or some other dirt poor third world country made, would that be fair would, that be paying you the real wage for your job?

You can choose to work with someone or not. No one forces you.

How can I choose to work for or not work for if that company is outsourced to China? Besides outsourcing does not have anything to do with the 1st amendment.

As far as we know it's free choice so it's fine.

A communist dictatorship,are you serious?

American entry into WWI.

That has already been proven to be false.See previous post

That's intellectual maturity.

You did make the absurd suggestion that the US got involved in WWI over tariffs. Heck you are still making that claim. Why would anyone think you actually read a real history book instead of national Enquirer stuff?

Why did those things happen? Exactly

Americans in a British ocean liner being attacked by a German ship, Zimmermann Telegram. and the Germans attacking Merchant ships. Nothing to do with protectionism and tariffs.

Khayembii Communique · Dec 21, 2009

phattonez said:
Kind of off-topic, but do you think that this was inevitable because of the way the countries developed or just because of the tariffs that were instituted?

I don't see the difference between these two questions, so I can't really respond. These countries developed the way they did in part because of the tariffs and other policies that were implemented, so the answer to your question would be that it was inevitable because of both.

jamesrage said:
A communist dictatorship,are you serious?

China isn't communist.

Americans in a British ocean liner being attacked by a German ship, Zimmermann Telegram. and the Germans attacking Merchant ships. Nothing to do with protectionism and tariffs.

If you think such minor actions are the causes of one of the largest military conflicts in history then I believe it is you that needs to stop drinking the Kool Aid.

phattonez · Dec 21, 2009

jamesrage said:
Paying someone significantly less for the same amount of work would be unfair. If your job you planned to get after you finished school started paying you what someone doing the same job in Mexico or some other dirt poor third world country made, would that be fair would, that be paying you the real wage for your job?

If you produce the same amount then yes it would be fair. You can't always win when you speculate, which is what education really amounts to.

How can I choose to work for or not work for if that company is outsourced to China? Besides outsourcing does not have anything to do with the 1st amendment.

The people in China choose to work there. They are not being exploited.

A communist dictatorship,are you serious?

Proof otherwise?

Americans in a British ocean liner being attacked by a German ship, Zimmermann Telegram. and the Germans attacking Merchant ships. Nothing to do with protectionism and tariffs.

So the US did not heavily favor the allies through trade before WWI?

Khayembii Communique · Dec 21, 2009

phattonez said:
Kind of off-topic, but do you think that this was inevitable because of the way the countries developed or just because of the tariffs that were instituted?

Another thing about this. I didn't think I'd be able to find this quote but I got lucky:

Hilferding therefore argued that the function of protectionism had been completely transformed. 'From being a means of defence against the conquest of the domestic market by foreign industries it has become a means for the conquest of foreign markets by domestic industry' (FC: 310).

As we have seen, the protective tariff brings the capitalist monopoly an extra profit on its sales in the domestic market. The larger the economic territory, the greater the volume of domestic sales . . . and the larger therefore the cartel's profits. The greater this profit, the higher the export subsidies can be, and the stronger therefore is the cartel's competitive position on the world market. (FC: 313)

Protectionism divides the world into distinct national economic territories, and the rise of monopoly impels protectionism to new heights. This is the basis of a theory of imperialism... To quote him:

The policy of finance capital has three objectives: (1) to establish the largest possible economic territory; (2) to close this territory to foreign competition by a wall of protective tariffs, and consequently (3) to reserve it as an area of exploitation for the national monopolistic combines. (FC: 320)

Brewer, Anthony. Marxist Theories of Imperialism: A Critical Survey. 2nd Ed. pp.99-100

Bold mine.

And then there is this famous passage from Lenin's Imperialism: A Popular Outline:

Lenin said:
But very brief definitions, although convenient, for they sum up the main points, are nevertheless inadequate, since we have to deduce from them some especially important features of the phenomenon that has to be defined. And so, without forgetting the conditional and relative value of all definitions in general, which can never embrace all the concatenations of a phenomenon in its full development, we must give a definition of imperialism that will include the following five of its basic features:

(1) the concentration of production and capital has developed to such a high stage that it has created monopolies which play a decisive role in economic life; (2) the merging of bank capital with industrial capital, and the creation on the basis of this “finance capital”, of a financial oligarchy; (3) the export of capital as distinguished from the export of commodities acquires exceptional importance; (4) the formation of international monopoly capitalist associations which share the world among themselves, and (5) the territorial division of the whole world among the biggest capitalist powers is completed. Imperialism is capitalism at that stage of development at which the dominance of monopolies and finance capital is established; in which the export of capital has acquired pronounced importance; in which the division of the world among the international trusts has begun, in which the division of all territories of the globe among the biggest capitalist powers has been completed.
[Lenin, Imperialism the Highest Stage of Capitalism, LCW Volume 22, p. 266-7.]

danarhea · Dec 22, 2009

I have been reading the arguments made in this thread, and at this point, find them very intelligent. However, I would argue against extremes in either direction.

One extreme is to cut off China completely. We did this at one time, referring to China as "The Yellow Peril". A lot of good that did us. One good thing Nixon did was to open the door to China, and as a result, it's Communism has been moderated to a degree. That is a good thing.

However, there is another extreme, which is allowing Communist China (Yes, China is still a Communist nation) to beat us, gaming our own Capitalist system by manipulating its currency, paying below poverty wages, and even using slave labor to unfairly unbalance the playing field. China has unfairly manipulated the market, successfully, with these and other shady methods, and as a result, we could eventually become dependent on, and even economically subservient, to China. The last words I ever want to hear would be from a Communist nation, saying "Uncle Sam, your banker will see you now". If China is going to game the system, and cheat, in order to gain an economic advantage, then tariffs are just what we need to stop it. And if China chooses to retaliate, then let the trade war begin. I will more than support our side in a trade war. After all, we are not the ones who started it by cheating. And we could win this war in seconds, by renouncing our debt, and refusing to pay it.

Finally, our own forefathers warned us about foreign entanglements, and this also included economic entanglements. What a web we weave when we decide that comfort is more important than avoiding economic servitude. Once completely entangled in that web, all that remains is to wait for the spider to come down and suck our economic prosperity from us, thus turning us into a third world nation. We ignore our forefathers' advise at our own economic peril.

IMHO, it is much better, and patriotic, for us to live a little less comfortably, at this time, than to become a client-state of a Communist nation, and losing a portion, however small, of our own economic freedom in the process. We should not give in. We should fight instead.

Catz Part Deux · Dec 22, 2009

As a consumer, I make an effort to buy products made in the U.S. Walmart used to make a big deal about buying American products. I would like products to be clearly labeled so I can choose between buying something made in China, and buying something made by American workers.

Lipinski wants "buy American" wording in job legislation

phattonez

Catholic

jamesrage

jamesrage

EpicDude86

WTPPolitics

New member

phattonez

Catholic

EpicDude86

phattonez

Catholic

Khayembii Communique

jamesrage

phattonez

Catholic

jamesrage

phattonez

Catholic

jamesrage

jamesrage

phattonez

Catholic

phattonez

Catholic

Khayembii Communique

phattonez

Catholic

jamesrage

Khayembii Communique

phattonez

Catholic

Khayembii Communique

danarhea

Slayer of the DP Newsbot

Catz Part Deux