We Need Factories for Making Products and Not for Making Jobs

[Sun Devil 92]

But the net result is far fewer jobs.

In the short term, yes.

But investor's will make more money with efficient factories. Which will lead to the building of more factories. With the end result of more jobs created. ...

I'm not sure there will actually be an increase in jobs. Automation can remove hundreds of jobs. A few technicians and engineers can keep the line running.

In the end, it all has to balance.....I saying that and asking it at the same time.

If half the country is unemployed, while factories turn out lots of products......who is buying them ?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Trump blames outsourcing on taxes and regulations, not on greed for cheap labor. That's partly true, and the outsourcers may settle for moderate profits rather than lose it all, which is the just consequence of overreaching.

there is no greed for cheap labor. It would be like saying consumers are greedy because they want cheap prices. Does that get you all confused??

 

[Supposn]

I have not viewed with favor any existing or proposed USA trade policy that discriminates among foreign nations, or among the industries, or entities, or types of goods from any nation.

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

I have not viewed with favor any existing or proposed USA trade policy that discriminates among foreign nations, or among the industries, or entities, or types of goods from any nation.

Respectfully, Supposn

now you support Republican capitalism. Good for you?

 

[Supposn]

I have not viewed with favor any existing or proposed USA trade policy that discriminates among foreign nations, or among the industries, or entities, or types of goods from any nation.

Respectfully, Supposn

now you support Republican capitalism. Good for you?

EdwardBaiamonte, I’m CONSIDERING support for the proposed modifications of our corporate income tax regulations that would deny corporstions their tax reductions for purchaing foreign goods and services. Unlike Import certificate policy, tariffs, or other policies I’m aware of, this modification of corporate tax regulations would significantly reduce the price advantages enjoyed by imported products from nations of lower wages lesser purchasing powers while not requiring federal government’s estimating the U.S. dollar values of shipments through our borders.

If adopted, it would effectively be a protectionist provision within USA’s policies for our global trade and it’s a unilateral matter not subject to international negotiations.

You may recall our discussion of that proposal which is the subject of the thread
A Republican trade deficit solution?

Your last post to that thread seemed to be addressed to me and I would suppose also applies to house majority leader Paul Ryan and all other members of the U.S. Congress that are supporting or considering supporting that such a proposal. You painted us ALL with the same brush stokes
when you posted: “Please don't kid yourself you are a communist and trade intervention is but one of 1001 interventions that you want to control the economy. It's the communist way”.

I didn’t change my political position but you’re just full of labels with no logical concepts of what they mean, how they’re related and the consequences of those relationships. I’m trying to retain some respect for you but you make that difficult.

Supposn

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

I have not viewed with favor any existing or proposed USA trade policy that discriminates among foreign nations, or among the industries, or entities, or types of goods from any nation.

Respectfully, Supposn

now you support Republican capitalism. Good for you?

EdwardBaiamonte, I’m CONSIDERING support for the proposed modifications of our corporate income tax regulations that would deny corporstions their tax reductions for purchaing foreign goods and services. Unlike Import certificate policy, tariffs, or other policies I’m aware of, this modification of corporate tax regulations would significantly reduce the price advantages enjoyed by imported products from nations of lower wages lesser purchasing powers while not requiring federal government’s estimating the U.S. dollar values of shipments through our borders.

If adopted, it would effectively be a protectionist provision within USA’s policies for our global trade and it’s a unilateral matter not subject to international negotiations.

You may recall our discussion of that proposal which is the subject of the thread
A Republican trade deficit solution?

Your last post to that thread seemed to be addressed to me and I would suppose also applies to house majority leader Paul Ryan and all other members of the U.S. Congress that are supporting or considering supporting that such a proposal. You painted us ALL with the same brush stokes
when you posted: “Please don't kid yourself you are a communist and trade intervention is but one of 1001 interventions that you want to control the economy. It's the communist way”.

I didn’t change my political position but you’re just full of labels with no logical concepts of what they mean, how they’re related and the consequences of those relationships. I’m trying to retain some respect for you but you make that difficult.

Supposn

“Please don't kid yourself you are a communist and trade intervention is but one of 1001 interventions that you want to control the economy. It's the communist way.

Why not tell us a capitalist position that you have advocated if there is one??

 

[Supposn]

“Please don't kid yourself you are a communist and trade intervention is but one of 1001 interventions that you want to control the economy. It's the communist way.

Why not tell us a capitalist position that you have advocated if there is one??

EdwardBaiamonte, As you're aware, I’m a proponent of USA adopting the global trade policy described within Wikipedia's "Import Certificates" article. It would be of some benefit to every USA enterprise, (including foreign enterprises’ subsidiaries), that compete, or aspire to compete with foreign products sold anywhere on earth. It does not grant advatages to any entity at the expense of any USA entity.

Among USA enterprises, the trade proposal’s entirely pure competitive enterprise and internationally it entirely supports the concepts of “most favored nation”. But it does not support a global trade policy of “pure” free trade.

Globally to a limited extent it reduces USA products’ price disadvantages to products from lower wage nations; those limited reductions of USA products’ disadvantages are particularly effective in market places within the USA.

Now can you explain why you so much despise USA enterprises as to prefer that imports from foreign lower wage nations should consequentially drag upon our annual GDPs and numbers of jobs?

Despite your illogical political positions, I do wish you well.
Supposn

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

“Please don't kid yourself you are a communist and trade intervention is but one of 1001 interventions that you want to control the economy. It's the communist way.

Why not tell us a capitalist position that you have advocated if there is one??

EdwardBaiamonte, As you're aware, I’m a proponent of USA adopting the global trade policy described within Wikipedia's "Import Certificates" article. It would be of some benefit to every USA enterprise, (including foreign enterprises’ subsidiaries), that compete, or aspire to compete with foreign products sold anywhere on earth. It does not grant any entity, an advantage over any USA entity.

Among USA enterprises, the trade proposal’s entirely pure competitive enterprise and internationally it entirely supports the concepts of “most favored nation”. But it does not support a global trade policy of “pure” free trade.

Globally to a limited extent it reduces USA products’ price disadvantages to products from lower wage nations; those limited reductions of USA products’ disadvantages are particularly effective in market places within the USA.

Now can you explain why you so much despise USA enterprises as to prefer that imports from foreign lower wage nations should consequentially drag upon our annual GDPs and numbers of jobs?

Despite your illogical political positions, I do wish you well.
Supposn

Why would you say I despise them when you are the one who wants to protect and cripple them?

 

[Supposn]

“Please don't kid yourself you are a communist and trade intervention is but one of 1001 interventions that you want to control the economy. It's the communist way.

Why not tell us a capitalist position that you have advocated if there is one??

EdwardBaiamonte, As you're aware, I’m a proponent of USA adopting the global trade policy described within Wikipedia's "Import Certificates" article. It would be of some benefit to every USA enterprise, (including foreign enterprises’ subsidiaries), that compete, or aspire to compete with foreign products sold anywhere on earth. It does not grant any entity, an advantage over any USA entity.

Among USA enterprises, the trade proposal’s entirely pure competitive enterprise and internationally it entirely supports the concepts of “most favored nation”. But it does not support a global trade policy of “pure” free trade.

Globally to a limited extent it reduces USA products’ price disadvantages to products from lower wage nations; those limited reductions of USA products’ disadvantages are particularly effective in market places within the USA.

Now can you explain why you so much despise USA enterprises as to prefer that imports from foreign lower wage nations should consequentially drag upon our annual GDPs and numbers of jobs?

Despite your illogical political positions, I do wish you well.
Supposn

Why would you say I despise them when you are the one who wants to protect and cripple them?[/QUOTE

EdwardBaiamonte, protect whom from whom? How is protecting them, crippling them? Are our fire departments crippling us? do the pure foods and drug laws cripple us? does FAA regulations endanger aircraft safety?

This was another of your illogical and paranoiac posts.
I wish you well, Supposn

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

“Please don't kid yourself you are a communist and trade intervention is but one of 1001 interventions that you want to control the economy. It's the communist way.

Why not tell us a capitalist position that you have advocated if there is one??

EdwardBaiamonte, As you're aware, I’m a proponent of USA adopting the global trade policy described within Wikipedia's "Import Certificates" article. It would be of some benefit to every USA enterprise, (including foreign enterprises’ subsidiaries), that compete, or aspire to compete with foreign products sold anywhere on earth. It does not grant any entity, an advantage over any USA entity.

Among USA enterprises, the trade proposal’s entirely pure competitive enterprise and internationally it entirely supports the concepts of “most favored nation”. But it does not support a global trade policy of “pure” free trade.

Globally to a limited extent it reduces USA products’ price disadvantages to products from lower wage nations; those limited reductions of USA products’ disadvantages are particularly effective in market places within the USA.

Now can you explain why you so much despise USA enterprises as to prefer that imports from foreign lower wage nations should consequentially drag upon our annual GDPs and numbers of jobs?

Despite your illogical political positions, I do wish you well.
Supposn

Why would you say I despise them when you are the one who wants to protect and cripple them?[/QUOTE

EdwardBaiamonte, protect whom from whom? How is protecting them, crippling them? Are our fire departments crippling us? do the pure foods and drug laws cripple us? does FAA regulations endanger aircraft safety?

This was another of your illogical and paranoiac posts.
I wish you well, Supposn

1+1 = 2 you want to protect American industry from international competition so that it becomes crippled and second rate so that our nation Becomes crippled and second ratethis is something a child could understand but not a liberal