Should The US Girl Scouts Buy Their Uniforms From Communist China?

[Intense]

the issue i have with the fair labor approach is that it delves into the operation of other governments where we could use those same energies to improve the competitiveness of our own productivity. at a rhetoric level, that's fine, but beyond that, i'd like to see our government better empower our workers and companies which do produce stateside, instead of 'protecting' them with fair labor measures. there's more to the disparity of or competitiveness in our production market and that of countries which have economies based on production. their monetary situation and the costs of living and investment in those countries vastly advantages them over the US long after the plausibility of an 'unfair' characterization is remedied. for this reason, i'd like to see lawmakers do more to improve the competitiveness of local labor directly, so that foreign labor markets are on their heels for once.

The way Government does that is by maintaining the smallest foot print, and by staying out of the way. Demonizing Private Enterprise is a wrong turn. a Shameful wrong turn.

 

[manu1959]

the unions really didn't think this all the way thru did they....

 

[Intense]

the unions really didn't think this all the way thru did they....

I think that the fruit of Union interest is fully manifest in "We The Living" by Ayn Rand. The last thing on it's collective mind is justice or fair play, Comrades. Just saying.

 

[antagon]

the issue i have with the fair labor approach is that it delves into the operation of other governments where we could use those same energies to improve the competitiveness of our own productivity. at a rhetoric level, that's fine, but beyond that, i'd like to see our government better empower our workers and companies which do produce stateside, instead of 'protecting' them with fair labor measures. there's more to the disparity of or competitiveness in our production market and that of countries which have economies based on production. their monetary situation and the costs of living and investment in those countries vastly advantages them over the US long after the plausibility of an 'unfair' characterization is remedied. for this reason, i'd like to see lawmakers do more to improve the competitiveness of local labor directly, so that foreign labor markets are on their heels for once.

The way Government does that is by maintaining the smallest foot print, and by staying out of the way. Demonizing Private Enterprise is a wrong turn. a Shameful wrong turn.

i dont advocate demonizing private enterprise, but i feel that fair trade policies which empower tariffs and quotas on these goods demonize american consumers. the negative side effects of these policies also corrode competitiveness of american businesses as we have had a chance to witness in the past. this is a shameful wrong turn from my perspective.

i disagree that the small footprint solution fits this situation. for one thing, i dont think you could suggest that the government referee trade out one side of your mouth and claim small footprint out the other.

what i suggest is a shift in footprint toward supporting businesses employing american workers. i own two businesses with employees, and far from demonizing myself, i suggest that the government give me some of the money that i pay on employees back in deductions of my tax liability. i suggest that this is focused on hourly workers because im not into salaried management leaches much and know that commissioned workers could fend for themselves. the money is there, Intense. we give it away in entitlements to people who are ostensibly displaced by decreasing demand in our job market. lots of this demand has gone right overseas. why not bring it back with a policy like this that makes foreign and domestic firms look at american labor as an attractive option for production? problem solved.

 

[antagon]

No more or less than was the increase in cost when slavery ended.

Yes, it costs more when the workers aren't slaves or starving children. So what? Wil prices go up? Not really. They haven't gone down when companies have moved; not nearly so much as the profit margin has increased. That you defend slavery and the suffering of children in the name of profit makes you less than human. You're a fine example of why capitalism is an evil system.

Men are not mere commodities and assets to be purchases, traded, used, and manipulated in the pursuit of capital.'

i'd argue that prices do vary between cheap chinese goods and those which are available from brands which are made elsewhere, particularly in developed nations. this isn't about me and my advocating chinese labor practices. this is about your tariff and quota fix which transfers the burden of chinese manufacture practices to american consumers. it considers the repercussions of open tariffs and quotas when there are american firms looking to produce products and provide raw materials on the world market. i think that tariffs and quotas are crude and impede the very basis of the US economy: our capacity to consume products and services. why not address the issues which make the chinese labor market more attractive than the domestic market by making our market more competitive?

More competitive? WE outlawed Slavery, Prison Labor, pretty much, and Child Labor. Questioning Government Agencies and their over reach makes sense. Let's start with the Commerce Clause, let's restore it to original Design, and how about the EPA being limited to what it can competently prove, rather than everything it can imagine. How about Government in General Maintaining a fair playing field, rather than picking who win's and who loses, before the game is played. Hamilton corrupted Government's role by making it a silent partner in big business, let's put an end to that, and restore the integrity of the Referee.

you have to recognize that by outlawing slavery and laying minimum wages and maximum regular time hours -- all of the concepts which empower your fair trade solution (including environmental regs) -- we have made americans less competitive in the labor market, but more competitive on the commerce/consumption market. it has made america a better, cleaner, happier place.

instead of advocating a retreat from these regs which i dont find to be very unreasonable at all, we could simply adjust the priorities communicated by our tax system to let businesses know that their role in domestic hiring is appreciated.

of course one can argue that that's hamiltonian, but i think the government was set up to consider all of this together with the progress since that time, and that that consideration is facilitated through republican process of government, not by the constitution itself. the constitution, for example, doesn't tell us what to do when chinese are kicking our ass at our own expense. it does say that our elected officials could propose reforms to remedy such.

 

[Intense]

the issue i have with the fair labor approach is that it delves into the operation of other governments where we could use those same energies to improve the competitiveness of our own productivity. at a rhetoric level, that's fine, but beyond that, i'd like to see our government better empower our workers and companies which do produce stateside, instead of 'protecting' them with fair labor measures. there's more to the disparity of or competitiveness in our production market and that of countries which have economies based on production. their monetary situation and the costs of living and investment in those countries vastly advantages them over the US long after the plausibility of an 'unfair' characterization is remedied. for this reason, i'd like to see lawmakers do more to improve the competitiveness of local labor directly, so that foreign labor markets are on their heels for once.

The way Government does that is by maintaining the smallest foot print, and by staying out of the way. Demonizing Private Enterprise is a wrong turn. a Shameful wrong turn.

i dont advocate demonizing private enterprise, but i feel that fair trade policies which empower tariffs and quotas on these goods demonize american consumers. the negative side effects of these policies also corrode competitiveness of american businesses as we have had a chance to witness in the past. this is a shameful wrong turn from my perspective.

i disagree that the small footprint solution fits this situation. for one thing, i dont think you could suggest that the government referee trade out one side of your mouth and claim small footprint out the other.

what i suggest is a shift in footprint toward supporting businesses employing american workers. i own two businesses with employees, and far from demonizing myself, i suggest that the government give me some of the money that i pay on employees back in deductions of my tax liability. i suggest that this is focused on hourly workers because im not into salaried management leaches much and know that commissioned workers could fend for themselves. the money is there, Intense. we give it away in entitlements to people who are ostensibly displaced by decreasing demand in our job market. lots of this demand has gone right overseas. why not bring it back with a policy like this that makes foreign and domestic firms look at american labor as an attractive option for production? problem solved.

My reference to demonizing private enterprise was not to you, but the Progressive community in general. It's pretty much institutionalized thinking and teaching at this point, unless your Paycheck comes from Government, you are greedy and evil.

You in fact make great points. I would give you something to think about in relation to tariff's though on a few counts. First, it was by original design, in part, to be a major source of funding for the Federal Government. Now in all things there is balance, had it been maintained, present day would look much different. Second, We at least were, the Premiere Market Place, many would have very clearly paid the price of admission to play here. Third, had we maintained Government control and oversight over what comes and goes, had the Federal Government taken inspections more seriously, and gotten it's compensation from doing so, we would be allot more secure today than we are.

In relation to what Union's proclaim to do, any State or Federal Labor Law would and could do better and fairer, were we to look that way.

 

[antagon]

i feel you, man, definitely about the unions. i do consider myself a progressive, but that means that there needs to be innovation in the way things are done, not regression per sa or stubbornness.

i do know what progressive has come to indicate: that it is tied with the specific policies which we'd call the progressive era. i think that these, too should be subject to progression, ie: move on.

i've thought about tariffs and quotas, and certainly have looked into their origins in our early public finance. here's something for you to consider from my perspective on their history: i think we have readdressed the burden of public finance away from money spenders toward money makers because we value the role of demand in kicking off economic growth. i argue that this has worked compared to the tariff system. we have put tariffs on the supply side instead: minimum and prevailing wages. we have applied quotas: 40-hour work week and over/double time which are analogous to quota-premiums in the context of supply-side burden. child labor laws are quotas restricting a previously free labor market. we have even applied market-grade price-fixing to the picture with welfare roles paying at or better than minimum wages.

now the labor market is tariffed and the trade market is free(er). this is better than it was beforehand. i dont think there's much to envy about 18th and 19th century economics compared to what we are working with today. the economies which try to operate similarly to how we did back then (to include china) are assholes to the people which comprise them, and i for one am not impressed with the outcomes of those policies considering all of the resources, human and otherwise which go into their overall performance.

in light of how i see progressive, that is to move on, i think that we ought to move on from the total burdening of the supply-side which i have put out above. i dont believe in dropping things which work, so we can keep the minimum wage, etc, but i think that we could readdress entitlements 50 years on to refocus that energy on people trying to work and put people to work rather than those who arent working and might not even want to. i dont advocate a general tax cut. i advocate one which says we value jobmakers, and one which essentially subsidizes the value of american workers without stripping their 'entitlement' to decent wages and standards.

 

[antagon]

Second, We at least were, the Premiere Market Place, many would have very clearly paid the price of admission to play here.

i like the way this is stated. i believe that we should direct this approach to immigration and ask good money for our visas and citizenship. this is another component in my bag of tricks that i'd like our government to put to work.

 

[Madeline]

I could not agree with you more, kwc57. IMO, Chinese goods should be illegal to import into the US unless certified child and slave labor-free by Amnesty International. As for any other Chinese goods, the US should slap a 100% tariff on them.

I do not care to live in a Third World Nation run remotely from Bejing.

Or Connecticut.

Dun be hating on the itty-bitty states, Intense. They cannot help not having as much land as a downtown Cleveland parking lot. Lack of prior planning can be tragic in its results....New York has no such problem.

Just sayin'......

 

[Madeline]

Most Americans make purchases based on price. We simply can't compete with nations who don't have the same type of protections our government mandates. This is why people fight against unions.

The solution:

protective tariffs and fair trade laws than ban imported goods produced in sweatshops to reduce the exploitation of the poor and make 'outsourcing' less attractive and keeps jobs and manufacturing inside the United States, with trade being supplementing rather than replacing American production and invention. Two birds, one stone.

And I agree with your point that many of the unions got greedy and shot themselves in the foot.

The solution. Fair Labor Laws. Expel Union's from Government, Federal State and Local Government Jobs. Disband Government Workers Unions.

Meh, mebbe. Doubtless this would be a step forward...but why not use tariffs and ban certain goods from import altogether?

Yanno, Japanese steel is one thing. There are no 5 year olds in Japanese steel mills and I can kinda sorta see the argument that the US worker must compete globally.

But no US worker should have to compete with Chinese slaves or children, certainly not for a share of the US market.

I have a dear friend who travels on business rather extensively in China, and says he has seen these labor camps first hand. He has seen child after child with the scars from kidney operations, and blind in one eye because their corneas were removed, etc. Enough so that he believes this is not a coincidence or a small scale problem....it ain't just clothing these children produce.

It is also black market body parts.

How can the US sit by and profit from/suffer from/endorse such a horror show?

 

[Intense]

I could not agree with you more, kwc57. IMO, Chinese goods should be illegal to import into the US unless certified child and slave labor-free by Amnesty International. As for any other Chinese goods, the US should slap a 100% tariff on them.

I do not care to live in a Third World Nation run remotely from Bejing.

Or Connecticut.

Dun be hating on the itty-bitty states, Intense. They cannot help not having as much land as a downtown Cleveland parking lot. Lack of prior planning can be tragic in its results....New York has no such problem.

Just sayin'......

Connecticut-The Constitution State-The Oligarchy State Follow the Yellow Brick Road or follow the Puppet Strings back to the Source.

New York is perfect for the Elite and Privileged, the rest of us, we don't count.

 

[Madeline]

preposterous. they are de facto penalties on consumers.

No more or less than was the increase in cost when slavery ended.

Yes, it costs more when the workers aren't slaves or starving children. So what? Wil prices go up? Not really. They haven't gone down when companies have moved; not nearly so much as the profit margin has increased. That you defend slavery and the suffering of children in the name of profit makes you less than human. You're a fine example of why capitalism is an evil system.

Men are not mere commodities and assets to be purchases, traded, used, and manipulated in the pursuit of capital.'

i'd argue that prices do vary between cheap chinese goods and those which are available from brands which are made elsewhere, particularly in developed nations. this isn't about me and my advocating chinese labor practices. this is about your tariff and quota fix which transfers the burden of chinese manufacture practices to american consumers. it considers the repercussions of open tariffs and quotas when there are american firms looking to produce products and provide raw materials on the world market. i think that tariffs and quotas are crude and impede the very basis of the US economy: our capacity to consume products and services. why not address the issues which make the chinese labor market more attractive than the domestic market by making our market more competitive?

Anatagon, the argument I usually hear when I suggest protectionism for US trade is that China will retaliate.

Do we give a shit if we cannot sell US goods in China? If the upside was, China cannot sell Chinese goods in the US, wouldn't we be far ahead of the game?

 

[antagon]

madeline, why do you feel that american consumers should suffer on account of what is wrong with china? i think china's accountable for enough suffering as it is. tariffs are penalties for buying goods which the tariffs are placed on and these penalties are borne by the consumer.

 

[Madeline]

the issue i have with the fair labor approach is that it delves into the operation of other governments where we could use those same energies to improve the competitiveness of our own productivity. at a rhetoric level, that's fine, but beyond that, i'd like to see our government better empower our workers and companies which do produce stateside, instead of 'protecting' them with fair labor measures. there's more to the disparity of or competitiveness in our production market and that of countries which have economies based on production. their monetary situation and the costs of living and investment in those countries vastly advantages them over the US long after the plausibility of an 'unfair' characterization is remedied. for this reason, i'd like to see lawmakers do more to improve the competitiveness of local labor directly, so that foreign labor markets are on their heels for once.

How do lawmakers improve the competitiveness of local labor? Repeal the minimum wage law? Outlaw unions? Repeal sales taxes on US-made goods?

I mean, this all sounds good, but what are the specifics?

 

[Intense]

From before the Civil War, there were issues of who wins and who loses with Trade Regulation. Agriculture, Industry, Research, it is about balance.

 

[Madeline]

Or Connecticut.

Dun be hating on the itty-bitty states, Intense. They cannot help not having as much land as a downtown Cleveland parking lot. Lack of prior planning can be tragic in its results....New York has no such problem.

Just sayin'......

Connecticut-The Constitution State-The Oligarchy State Follow the Yellow Brick Road or follow the Puppet Strings back to the Source.

New York is perfect for the Elite and Privileged, the rest of us, we don't count.

There is more to New York than NYC, Intense. The Finger Lakes, the Appalachian Mountains, Long Island......it's a treasure trove of a state with something for everyone.

It even has a playground for the simple-minded, called Buffalo.

 

[antagon]

No more or less than was the increase in cost when slavery ended.

Yes, it costs more when the workers aren't slaves or starving children. So what? Wil prices go up? Not really. They haven't gone down when companies have moved; not nearly so much as the profit margin has increased. That you defend slavery and the suffering of children in the name of profit makes you less than human. You're a fine example of why capitalism is an evil system.

Men are not mere commodities and assets to be purchases, traded, used, and manipulated in the pursuit of capital.'

i'd argue that prices do vary between cheap chinese goods and those which are available from brands which are made elsewhere, particularly in developed nations. this isn't about me and my advocating chinese labor practices. this is about your tariff and quota fix which transfers the burden of chinese manufacture practices to american consumers. it considers the repercussions of open tariffs and quotas when there are american firms looking to produce products and provide raw materials on the world market. i think that tariffs and quotas are crude and impede the very basis of the US economy: our capacity to consume products and services. why not address the issues which make the chinese labor market more attractive than the domestic market by making our market more competitive?

Anatagon, the argument I usually hear when I suggest protectionism for US trade is that China will retaliate.

Do we give a shit if we cannot sell US goods in China? If the upside was, China cannot sell Chinese goods in the US, wouldn't we be far ahead of the game?

its not a game. we shouldn't put some international social justice issue on the backs of american businesses and consumers. this is cutting off your nose to spoil your face or burning candles at both ends. however clever the way you care to look at it, i argue that it's not advisable.

 

[Madeline]

madeline, why do you feel that american consumers should suffer on account of what is wrong with china? i think china's accountable for enough suffering as it is. tariffs are penalties for buying goods which the tariffs are placed on and these penalties are borne by the consumer.

This is the real rub....us Americans are addicted to cheap Chinese goods and won't willingly pay the freight for those same goods made by workers in our country, in safe conditions.

 

[Intense]

Dun be hating on the itty-bitty states, Intense. They cannot help not having as much land as a downtown Cleveland parking lot. Lack of prior planning can be tragic in its results....New York has no such problem.

Just sayin'......

Connecticut-The Constitution State-The Oligarchy State Follow the Yellow Brick Road or follow the Puppet Strings back to the Source.

New York is perfect for the Elite and Privileged, the rest of us, we don't count.

There is more to New York than NYC, Intense. The Finger Lakes, the Appalachian Mountains, Long Island......it's a treasure trove of a state with something for everyone.

It even has a playground for the simple-minded, called Buffalo.

OMG Buffalo, My Son is up there. There is more to NY than NYC??? You are Kidding, Right?

Check out My Picture Album , if you get a chance. I took a run up to the Adirondacks during that last big storm, with the hope of getting some Foliage pictures while the trees still had leaves. Eventful Trip. Long Island??? Where's that???

 

[Madeline]

i'd argue that prices do vary between cheap chinese goods and those which are available from brands which are made elsewhere, particularly in developed nations. this isn't about me and my advocating chinese labor practices. this is about your tariff and quota fix which transfers the burden of chinese manufacture practices to american consumers. it considers the repercussions of open tariffs and quotas when there are american firms looking to produce products and provide raw materials on the world market. i think that tariffs and quotas are crude and impede the very basis of the US economy: our capacity to consume products and services. why not address the issues which make the chinese labor market more attractive than the domestic market by making our market more competitive?

Anatagon, the argument I usually hear when I suggest protectionism for US trade is that China will retaliate.

Do we give a shit if we cannot sell US goods in China? If the upside was, China cannot sell Chinese goods in the US, wouldn't we be far ahead of the game?

its not a game. we shouldn't put some international social justice issue on the backs of american businesses and consumers. this is cutting off your nose to spoil your face or burning candles at both ends. however clever the way you care to look at it, i argue that it's not advisable.

If Americans could work at manufacturing again, is that social justice or just wise economic policy?