Free Trade?

[Shorebreak]

We were "on top of the world" post WW2 because we bombed out everybody's else's industrial capacity and so were the sole provider of steel, autos, etc. Once those countries' economies rebuilt they became competitive again and were kicking our unionized, protected butts.
If protectionism worked, then E.Germany would be a world economic power. Instead when the Wall fell we found an industrial complex hopelessly outdated because there was no incentive to invest in newer more productive techniques and machinery.

So.... shipping all of our heavy industry and manufacturing to Asia, Mexico, and other offshore locations - after enabling those nations to export to the US without tariff - isn't a core contributor to our economic decline? it was only a matter of time?

I wouldn't give you a nickel for that theory unless you framed it in gold. Protectionism doesn't mean not trading. it measn trading in a manner that does not allow foreign economic conditions that are beyond our control to impact our domestic economy.

As far as manufacturing technology is concerned, I work in the regulatory manufacturing field. In auditing facilities and vendors at a global level, I can tell you without reservation that US manufacturing technology and efficiency is at the very top of the game.

I can also tell you with regards to our domestic economy in a globalized marketplace, when I speak with production and operations managers, when I speak with instrumentation and technology research scientists who are at the tip of the spear in process optimization (I interact with the top of the game in the US, Europe, and Asia), and when I speak with officials at the state level who are working overtime to develop local manufacturing capabilities, the one common theme that comes up over and over again is that we're not given a fighting chance because no matter what we do or how we progress, nearly ALL of our efforts get moved offshore once we have proven a technology and it's ready for implementation.

If you get your information and opinion from talking heads and your favorite columnists in media, whether they claim to be liberal or conservative, I can proimise you that if they aren't communicating the exact information that I just provided you, they are either out of touch with the manufacturing community (aka the economic driver of the nation), or they are sending a watered down/distorted message.

I'll check back later for a response. I'm heading out now to an industry event in my region. My company is being awarded for growth and leadership.

If you're in business and looking for ways to succeed, I'll give you the points that I give everyone else:
1. Assume a worst-case economic scenario and plan towards surviving it - not a 5 year plan, but a 12-18 month plan. Be flexible today to meet tomorrows surprises. Don't throw away your long term planning but be certain to tailor them to the risks identified in your worst-case scenario plan.
2. Diversify, diversify, diversify. Like real estate, economic survival means being in the right market at the right time. Establish multiple egg baskets and grow each of them independently, no matter what the core competencies of your current business - even if you're a small business owner working from home. Look for ways to diversify. We've almost doubled in size using that approach over the last 18 months.
3. Collaborate. Establish relationships with like and complimentary businesses. Sell your product or services through them. For example, just last month I established a relationship with a reputed IT security firm. I can now add their capabilities to my portfolio of services, which opens new avenues for business that would not come my way without the security component. Tomorrows collaboration meeting is with a mid-sized competitor who is already inside several fortune 100 organizations. By offering to collaborate with them, they get larger projects and we extend our business into clients where we currently do not have a relationship.

I was speaking to a group recently and one of the follow-up questions was asked with a little bit of a wink and a smile (by a salesman from the company I'm meeting tomorrow), "If you want to be successful and if this is working for you, why are you sharing your strategy with the rest of us?"

My answer was very simple: We're all in this thing together. If you're not successful, I can't be successful. If we work together to identify our challenges, we can work together to maintain and grow our businesses.

And it all ties back to what we need to do as a result of an unlevel playing field between domestic US industry and those whom we are forced to compete with from offshore markets. Anyone in the US manufacturing industry will tell you that - with and without unions.

 

[Charles Stucker]

You cannot separate "the bottom line in business' from "the economic impact on US families." They are one in the same.

This is so close to the old chestnut "I it's good for business it's good for America" that I felt compelled to comment.

In the case of "Good for business = Good for America" a trivial counterexample is seen with; smoking rates among teens skyrocket. Good for Philip Morris, bad for the USA.

The same with your assertion. A power company cuts corners on safety and environmental issues, bribing inspectors to look the other way. Bottom line they profit, but families see an increased cost in health care because of the toxicity of the waste products released, a bad economic impact.

 

[The Rabbi]

You cannot separate "the bottom line in business' from "the economic impact on US families." They are one in the same.

This is so close to the old chestnut "I it's good for business it's good for America" that I felt compelled to comment.

In the case of "Good for business = Good for America" a trivial counterexample is seen with; smoking rates among teens skyrocket. Good for Philip Morris, bad for the USA.

The same with your assertion. A power company cuts corners on safety and environmental issues, bribing inspectors to look the other way. Bottom line they profit, but families see an increased cost in health care because of the toxicity of the waste products released, a bad economic impact.

You are confusing prospering with off-loading costs. Sorry, old fallacy in economics.

 

[The Rabbi]

We were "on top of the world" post WW2 because we bombed out everybody's else's industrial capacity and so were the sole provider of steel, autos, etc. Once those countries' economies rebuilt they became competitive again and were kicking our unionized, protected butts.
If protectionism worked, then E.Germany would be a world economic power. Instead when the Wall fell we found an industrial complex hopelessly outdated because there was no incentive to invest in newer more productive techniques and machinery.

So.... shipping all of our heavy industry and manufacturing to Asia, Mexico, and other offshore locations - after enabling those nations to export to the US without tariff - isn't a core contributor to our economic decline? it was only a matter of time?

I wouldn't give you a nickel for that theory unless you framed it in gold. Protectionism doesn't mean not trading. it measn trading in a manner that does not allow foreign economic conditions that are beyond our control to impact our domestic economy.

As far as manufacturing technology is concerned, I work in the regulatory manufacturing field. In auditing facilities and vendors at a global level, I can tell you without reservation that US manufacturing technology and efficiency is at the very top of the game.

I can also tell you with regards to our domestic economy in a globalized marketplace, when I speak with production and operations managers, when I speak with instrumentation and technology research scientists who are at the tip of the spear in process optimization (I interact with the top of the game in the US, Europe, and Asia), and when I speak with officials at the state level who are working overtime to develop local manufacturing capabilities, the one common theme that comes up over and over again is that we're not given a fighting chance because no matter what we do or how we progress, nearly ALL of our efforts get moved offshore once we have proven a technology and it's ready for implementation.

If you get your information and opinion from talking heads and your favorite columnists in media, whether they claim to be liberal or conservative, I can proimise you that if they aren't communicating the exact information that I just provided you, they are either out of touch with the manufacturing community (aka the economic driver of the nation), or they are sending a watered down/distorted message.

I'll check back later for a response. I'm heading out now to an industry event in my region. My company is being awarded for growth and leadership.

.

Curiously your post supports my position, not contradicts it.
The US has been a net importer of jobs from other countries,not an exporter. The US manufactures more than we ever have, not less. We have fewer people involved in doing that because of increased efficiency. It is akin to farming in the 19th century. We have the lowest number of people involved in farming in our history but produce more ag goods than ever before.
Our economic decline is due to policies in Washington that stifle and punish manufacturing and lower-wage jobs.

 

[Samson]

You cannot separate "the bottom line in business' from "the economic impact on US families." They are one in the same.

This is so close to the old chestnut "I it's good for business it's good for America" that I felt compelled to comment.

In the case of "Good for business = Good for America" a trivial counterexample is seen with; smoking rates among teens skyrocket. Good for Philip Morris, bad for the USA.

The same with your assertion. A power company cuts corners on safety and environmental issues, bribing inspectors to look the other way. Bottom line they profit, but families see an increased cost in health care because of the toxicity of the waste products released, a bad economic impact.

Apparently, you aren't counting the NET Economic Impact, because only the negative side of the ledger suits your thesis. Oddly, you refer to this as "THE BOTTOM LINE"

Let's go ahead and assume that your wild conspiracy theory is true, and that power companies are bribing the EPA, and a massive Federal government network of regularory agencies, plus the FBI.

The NET economic impact would account for the loss of heath given no electricity: How many families in Houston would be healthier without air conditioning? How many people would suffer from food poisoning if refrigeration wasn't avalable. How many Hospitals could operate without electricity?

The same analysis could be done for Tobacco. Sure there are deaths and disease caused by tobacco (read the packaging of any tobacco product). However, the price involved in careing for these idiots is really what we, as a nation have declared is a worthwhile individual freedom which is the foundation of our constitution.

 

[Charles Stucker]

Let's go ahead and assume that your wild conspiracy theory is true, and that power companies are bribing the EPA, and a massive Federal government network of regularory agencies, plus the FBI.

The NET economic impact

Blah, blah, blah.
You lost it when you went into "wild conspiracy theory"
I gave an example of how something could benefit the bottom line of a business, without remarking on how plausible that something might be, solely as a counterexample to the "bottom line for business"
You are right, as a nation the USA faces a lot of costs which companies don't pay. The "bottom line" is that the company "bottom line" benefits from policies which are detrimental to the US as a whole, which is to say the national "bottom line."

Of course if you want to get to the "bottom" of this, just look at the lobbyists forming a "line" around Washington.

 

[Samson]

Let's go ahead and assume that your wild conspiracy theory is true, and that power companies are bribing the EPA, and a massive Federal government network of regularory agencies, plus the FBI.

The NET economic impact

Blah, blah, blah.
You lost it when you went into "wild conspiracy theory".

Hey, I was willing to accept your contention without any substantiation, and You think I "lost it?"

Ok, I Won't assume you're right about power companies are bribing the EPA, and a massive Federal government network of regularory agencies, plus the FBI.

You have some proof of this, or are you just pulling it out your ass?

Better now?

 

[Charles Stucker]

Hey, I was willing to accept your contention without any substantiation, and You think I "lost it?"

As I recall you have, in another thread, stated you teach secondary science.
You claim to be a teacher and yet cannot follow a simple logical construction.
Poster a - This Statement is True
Me - counterexample
You - that's a broad conspiracy
Me - it was a counterexample
You - Prove it
That is the sort of logical thinking taught by idiots.
Makes me wonder about your science.

 

[antagon]

let's go ahead and assume that your wild conspiracy theory is true, and that power companies are bribing the epa, and a massive federal government network of regularory agencies, plus the fbi.

The net economic impact

blah, blah, blah.
You lost it when you went into "wild conspiracy theory".

hey, i was willing to accept your contention without any substantiation, and you think i "lost it?"

ok, i won't assume you're right about power companies are bribing the epa, and a massive federal government network of regularory agencies, plus the fbi.

You have some proof of this, or are you just pulling it out your ass?

Better now?

enron?

 

[Samson]

Hey, I was willing to accept your contention without any substantiation, and You think I "lost it?"

As I recall you have, in another thread, stated you teach secondary science.
You claim to be a teacher and yet cannot follow a simple logical construction.
Poster a - This Statement is True
Me - counterexample
You - that's a broad conspiracy
Me - it was a counterexample
You - Prove it
That is the sort of logical thinking taught by idiots.
Makes me wonder about your science.

I'm really not surprise if you wonder about many things.

But try to focus a moment on just the topic and my response, m'k?

Did you even bother to read what I posted?

The contention I agreed with was: That there were all sorts of scandals allowed in your imaginary little world. I'm saying, lets put a side this particular ridiculous assuption for a moment.

But no, you cannot, because you're full of shit.

Otherwise you would have bothered to answer the questions:

The NET economic impact would account for the loss of heath given no electricity: How many families in Houston would be healthier without air conditioning? How many people would suffer from food poisoning if refrigeration wasn't avalable. How many Hospitals could operate without electricity?

Plus, its a whole lot easier for you to put together a strawman like my experiences teaching science.

I cannot believe I tried to school you in anything: So far you've only wasted my time.

My only consolation is that I never bothered reading past the first paragraph of your OP.

 

[The Rabbi]

blah, blah, blah.
You lost it when you went into "wild conspiracy theory".

hey, i was willing to accept your contention without any substantiation, and you think i "lost it?"

ok, i won't assume you're right about power companies are bribing the epa, and a massive federal government network of regularory agencies, plus the fbi.

You have some proof of this, or are you just pulling it out your ass?

Better now?

enron?

OK, you're just pulling it out of your ass.

 

[antagon]

You cannot separate "the bottom line in business' from "the economic impact on US families." They are one in the same.

This is so close to the old chestnut "I it's good for business it's good for America" that I felt compelled to comment.

In the case of "Good for business = Good for America" a trivial counterexample is seen with; smoking rates among teens skyrocket. Good for Philip Morris, bad for the USA.

The same with your assertion. A power company cuts corners on safety and environmental issues, bribing inspectors to look the other way. Bottom line they profit, but families see an increased cost in health care because of the toxicity of the waste products released, a bad economic impact.

You are confusing prospering with off-loading costs. Sorry, old fallacy in economics.

where good for biz = b and good for america = a

b = a, so a = b. entre nous: EQUATION.

 

[Samson]

blah, blah, blah.
You lost it when you went into "wild conspiracy theory".

hey, i was willing to accept your contention without any substantiation, and you think i "lost it?"

ok, i won't assume you're right about power companies are bribing the epa, and a massive federal government network of regularory agencies, plus the fbi.

You have some proof of this, or are you just pulling it out your ass?

Better now?

enron?

Enron bribed the EPA?

No, I don't think this was among Enron's List of Scandalous Behaviours.

But, lets make an issue of it.

This way, we can avoid the larger holes in the OP.

 

[antagon]

hey, i was willing to accept your contention without any substantiation, and you think i "lost it?"

ok, i won't assume you're right about power companies are bribing the epa, and a massive federal government network of regularory agencies, plus the fbi.

You have some proof of this, or are you just pulling it out your ass?

Better now?

enron?

OK, you're just pulling it out of your ass.

you werent in california.

specifics aside, ENRON = power company that circumvented regulation on several levels for its own benefit, obtaining more absolute freedom than sound regulations enforce. it did not use this freedom for its clients', employees' or vast majority of owners' benefit.

applying a=b, b=a it failed. regulated, the impact of that would have been softened or the fact avoided altogether.

i was in san diego when the whale beached. bad for the economy, these dramatic effects of an unregulated business sector.

 

[antagon]

Enron bribed the EPA?

No, I don't think this was among Enron's List of Scandolous Behaviours.

But, lets make an issue of it.

This way, we can avoid the larger holes in the OP.

im with you. ENRON mainly bribed foreign government institutions, but it sells the broader point... conspiracy theorys trash the broader point, id say.

gotta keep my guard up just jumping in the ring like that.

 

[The Rabbi]

enron?

OK, you're just pulling it out of your ass.

you werent in california.

specifics aside, ENRON = power company that circumvented regulation on several levels for its own benefit, obtaining more absolute freedom than sound regulations enforce. it did not use this freedom for its clients', employees' or vast majority of owners' benefit.

applying a=b, b=a it failed. regulated, the impact of that would have been softened or the fact avoided altogether.

i was in san diego when the whale beached. bad for the economy, these dramatic effects of an unregulated business sector.

Power isn't a heavily regulated industry? Securities aren't heavily regulated?
In fact the industry and Enron were heavily regulated on many fronts. That they succeeded in fooling the regulators tells you they were pretty good and the regulators were slow.
In fact, no amount of regulation will stop determined charlatans.
But all of that is off topic since bribing the EPA is not one of the things Enron was accused of.

 

[antagon]

OK, you're just pulling it out of your ass.

you werent in california.

specifics aside, ENRON = power company that circumvented regulation on several levels for its own benefit, obtaining more absolute freedom than sound regulations enforce. it did not use this freedom for its clients', employees' or vast majority of owners' benefit.

applying a=b, b=a it failed. regulated, the impact of that would have been softened or the fact avoided altogether.

i was in san diego when the whale beached. bad for the economy, these dramatic effects of an unregulated business sector.

Power isn't a heavily regulated industry? Securities aren't heavily regulated?
In fact the industry and Enron were heavily regulated on many fronts. That they succeeded in fooling the regulators tells you they were pretty good and the regulators were slow.
In fact, no amount of regulation will stop determined charlatans.
But all of that is off topic since bribing the EPA is not one of the things Enron was accused of.

the original debate was about enabling charlatans. i think some parallel to how thats like not having any protectionist policies. stretchty. it was yours and stuckys debate, i just cast some light on the electrico arguement.