"What's good for General Motors, is good for America!"

[Jdanz]

i would find it an admirable idea, but in the end shortsighted.

Suppliers on the US side are going to charge as much as they can, if we were to impose a tariff on foriegn goods, suppliers would just be competing vs a lower price, and would raise their price accordingly. This would essentially be a government subsidy to corporations and wouldn't actually help the average worker. (not to mention that the average american consumer would pay a higher price).

As to the idea of paying a subsidy to american workers, where is this money coming from? if it comes from the tariff on a similar good imported from abroad we A) increase corporate profits B) increase the price to american citizens. Where is this money coming from?

Essential there are people in america willing to do a job for x dollars and people abroad willing to do the same job for <x dollars, so i don't see any way of keeping the job here.

Personally i don't think the jobs should be kept here, as i don't believe americans deserve jobs any more then Chinese do.

It's a hard idea to swallow, but Americans are, in general, overpaid for what they do as compared to the rest of the world. Regardless of american policy as borders become less and less important it seems impossible to artificially maintain the imbalance of wealth around the world. If people are willing to do a job for less somewhere else, it's going to be impossible to keep employers from taking advantage of that.

Addendum: this will, IMO, have all sorts of unforseen consequences, and while it will likely DECREASE the conentration of wealth in relation to countries, it will likely INCREASE the concentration of wealth in relation to individuals. In the end a more "efficent" market outcome, leading to large divisional issues.

[adios]

Since when is firing people a good thing for GM????????????????

IMO they'd much prefer to be making a profit, growing sales, and hiring new employees.

[WillMagic]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm a pretty liberal guy, but i don't really know what to do about outsourcing and downsizing. They seem inevitable.

[/ QUOTE ]
Just thinking out loud : How would you feel about tariffs that would enable the paycheck of the American worker to compete with the paycheck of the Vietnamese worker?

The American worker gets more than the 1,500,000 dong per month his Vietnamese competitor gets, but this is not because of the unions only, it's because the of the level of living standards in the U.S.

(1,500,000 vietnamese dong = $100)

[/ QUOTE ]

BBBBBrilliant. I guess you would like to start paying $40 for your t-shirts and $100 for your jeans. At Target. Or maybe $500 for your Nikes.

While we're at it, why don't we put up a giant [censored] steel curtain around our country...because it would be such a shame to lose jobs to foreign workers. "America the free, land of liberty, off-limits to you stinkin' foreigners takin our jebs."

I'm reminded of Natedogg's definition of a democrat - a democrat is a liberal who doesn't understand economics.

Cyrus, you are a democrat.

Will

[Jdanz]

i won't comment on anything else, but that is a pretty funny definition of a democrat.

[hetron]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm a pretty liberal guy, but i don't really know what to do about outsourcing and downsizing. They seem inevitable.

[/ QUOTE ]
Just thinking out loud : How would you feel about tariffs that would enable the paycheck of the American worker to compete with the paycheck of the Vietnamese worker?

The American worker gets more than the 1,500,000 dong per month his Vietnamese competitor gets, but this is not because of the unions only, it's because the of the level of living standards in the U.S.

(1,500,000 vietnamese dong = $100)

[/ QUOTE ]

BBBBBrilliant. I guess you would like to start paying $40 for your t-shirts and $100 for your jeans. At Target. Or maybe $500 for your Nikes.

While we're at it, why don't we put up a giant [censored] steel curtain around our country...because it would be such a shame to lose jobs to foreign workers. "America the free, land of liberty, off-limits to you stinkin' foreigners takin our jebs."

I'm reminded of Natedogg's definition of a democrat - a democrat is a liberal who doesn't understand economics.

Cyrus, you are a democrat.

Will

[/ QUOTE ]

So "understanding economics" means that the best thing for the US is to do what is worst for its workers (ie, let them try to compete against countries that trash their environment and have absolutely no worker's rights)?

What if, just what if, this belief in liberal economics just ISN'T the best thing right now for the US working class?

[Cyrus]

discussion -- about living standards, protectionism, the benefits (and hardships) of "unferettered capitalism", etc. Maybe touch upon the modern notion of state -- and globalism. But it won't be. Questions about the real-world effects of "anarcho-capitalism" (and its comparison to true-blue anarchism) should've been tabled.

But they won't.

FWIW, I am not advocating the implementation of tariffs. (I already warned you lot, not to faint!) But can't we at least discuss this a bit? GM just laid 30,000 jobs to the wind.

[hetron]

[ QUOTE ]
Since when is firing people a good thing for GM????????????????

IMO they'd much prefer to be making a profit, growing sales, and hiring new employees.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's good if you are an executive at GM and you aren't the one losing your job [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[hetron]

[ QUOTE ]
discussion -- about living standards, protectionism, the benefits (and hardships) of "unferettered capitalism", etc. Maybe touch upon the modern notion of state -- and globalism. But it won't be. Questions about the real-world effects of "anarcho-capitalism" (and its comparison to true-blue) capitalism, should have ignited.

But they won't.

FWIW, I am not suggesting the implementaiotn of tariffs. I already warned you lot, not to faint! But can't we at least discuss this a bit? GM just laid 30,000 jobs to the wind.

[/ QUOTE ]

It won't. The users on this board have put their heart into the philosophy that liberal completely free market economics is inevitable and the best thing possible. I have started a few posts on here debating the point that A. worldwide liberalization has NOT always been successful in making some 3rd world countries more prosperous and that B. free trade agreements have not succeeded in making the US working class more prosperous.

Rather than debate these points, most people just argue "free and open markets are inevitable, anything else is bad" without really looking at any of the evidence showing why this might not be the case.

[Jdanz]

i think it can be, but i think this begs the question why is america's standard of living so much higher then elsewhere?

(my answer, the conentration of capital)

Whatever the reason for this high standard of living can it be maintained?

(my answer, without coercive force, probably not)

I really think this could lead to a very interesting disucssion about how we (as a people) feel about capitalism more generally, but in looking at what we might do to keep jobs in america, we also have to look at HOW we're doing it, and what the net effect of this intervention will be.

In this particular circumstance i think it's almost inarguably more "efficent" what GM is doing, insomuch as all the same goods will be provided, but at a lower price. I think a very interesting question is getting at why/if those jobs should be in america in the first place.

What does keeping jobs in America mean?

Does it mean actively looking out for American workers benifit over foreigners?

If that is so does it mean actively preventing foreigners from working jobs that could feasibly be worked by americans?

I think these are all intersting questions.

The final question in my mind, is how far can the American government justifiably go to promote it's own citizens welfare over non-citizens. Some would argue as far as it can, some would argue not at all, but i imagine that most Americans fall somewhere inbetween in their views, and it would be quite intersting to see where to draw the line and why.


I know for a fact, that you, Cyrus, fall somewhere between those extremes, and i'd be very interested in hearing what you think is a reasonable place to draw that line.

[Jdanz]

in my opinion free trade will inevitably make the US working class less prosperous and i think it would be disengenious to argue otherwise, yet i'm still largely free market in my thinking (side note, it will also make the products that US workers buy inevitably cheaper, but not at a comensurate level). I also believe that there should be a wealth tax (or at the very least an unearned income tax) to compensate for some of the problems within the free market, but i'm more then willing to debate.

In fact, while i have no problem with the actions of GM, i do infact agree that free-market capitalism is flawed, and i doubt you'll find any posts of mine that don't reflect that.

Still, getting the government involved in forcing companies to retain workers is almost certainly not the correct solution to the problems you have with capitalism.