Elvado
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,080
|
Post by Elvado on Aug 1, 2016 7:52:14 GMT -5
TPP is just like NAFTA in so much as Hillary has done her customary politically expedient 180 on it. Who cares? You're supporting a guy who can't maintain cohesion on a position between different questions in the same interview. You again mischaracterize where I am on this election. I do not support Trump. I loathe Clinton. Also remember most people expect more from the "most qualified candidate to ever seek the office". I do not expect much from a carnival barker like Trump. But I expect a lot from a super genius like Mrs. Clinton. Unfortunately, having any real core conviction other than victory and the accumulation of power is not among her many outstanding qualifications.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 1, 2016 11:04:32 GMT -5
TPP is just like NAFTA in so much as Hillary has done her customary politically expedient 180 on it. I agree with you here. I was very disappointed that Hillary back tracked on this. She should be supporting TPP.
|
|
hoyainspirit
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
When life puts that voodoo on me, music is my gris-gris.
Posts: 8,392
|
Post by hoyainspirit on Aug 1, 2016 12:22:12 GMT -5
Who cares? You're supporting a guy who can't maintain cohesion on a position between different questions in the same interview. You again mischaracterize where I am on this election. I do not support Trump. I loathe Clinton. Also remember most people expect more from the "most qualified candidate to ever seek the office". I do not expect much from a carnival barker like Trump. But I expect a lot from a super genius like Mrs. Clinton. Unfortunately, having any real core conviction other than victory and the accumulation of power is not among her many outstanding qualifications. Obama/Clinton Derangement Syndrome!
|
|
Elvado
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,080
|
Post by Elvado on Aug 1, 2016 12:30:08 GMT -5
You again mischaracterize where I am on this election. I do not support Trump. I loathe Clinton. Also remember most people expect more from the "most qualified candidate to ever seek the office". I do not expect much from a carnival barker like Trump. But I expect a lot from a super genius like Mrs. Clinton. Unfortunately, having any real core conviction other than victory and the accumulation of power is not among her many outstanding qualifications. Obama/Clinton Derangement Syndrome! Not to be confused with Obama Clinton Delusion Syndrome? Peace my friend.
|
|
This Just In
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Bold Prediction: The Hoyas will win at least 1 BE game in 2023.
Posts: 10,592
|
Post by This Just In on Aug 1, 2016 13:18:37 GMT -5
TPP is just like NAFTA in so much as Hillary has done her customary politically expedient 180 on it. I agree with you here. I was very disappointed that Hillary back tracked on this. She should be supporting TPP. Why do you support TPP?
|
|
|
Post by badgerhoya on Aug 1, 2016 13:23:42 GMT -5
One word: China.
|
|
This Just In
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Bold Prediction: The Hoyas will win at least 1 BE game in 2023.
Posts: 10,592
|
Post by This Just In on Aug 1, 2016 13:43:41 GMT -5
Does the threat of China justify the secrecy, the undermining of U.S. Sovereignty and the U.S. Constitution?
|
|
This Just In
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Bold Prediction: The Hoyas will win at least 1 BE game in 2023.
Posts: 10,592
|
Post by This Just In on Nov 16, 2016 11:14:04 GMT -5
No thanks to Obama, Hillary and the Neo-Liberal Democratic Establishment, but it looks like the TPP is dead...for now.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 22, 2016 16:40:35 GMT -5
We are all aware that the global economy is here to stay, right? And without NAFTA, all those "US jobs lost to Mexico because of NAFTA" would have eventually just been "US jobs lost to Mexico (or some other country with cheap labor)". Global supply chains will seek out the lowest possible costs, and there's nothing we can do about it that's going to save American jobs. Unless we think US workers are going to start to be willing to work for 25 cents a day making sneakers and undershirts.
All the hand-wringing over the ability of corporations to sue governments? Investor-State Dispute Settlement has been in trade deals in some form or another since 1959. The US is in like 50 deals already that have ISDS provisions in them. And you know why? So American companies can use it offensively. You think some Malaysian company will sue the US government over a some nonsense related to trade? Go ahead Malaysia, flex your muscles on us. Knock yourself out. We'll work with everyone else instead. We use this stuff because we have the upper hand in 99.8% of trade conversations. Small countries can't use it, because large countries are able to F them over in other ways if they even threaten it.
And China? China won't be in TPP at the outset - which is GREAT for us (if we're in it). Because when China does want to join 5 years from now, guess who sets the terms? Not the Chinese, looking to get into the club. Nope - the club members get to tell China the terms of engagement.
But we'll back out of it because Trump has to pander to his voters who believe that somehow, someway, we're going to start manufacturing a bunch of Edited in Ohio, and Michigan, and Pennsylvania, and West Virginia...which isn't going to happen (spoiler alert).
And now the rest of the TPP nations are going to turn to China, and trade policy for the Pacific Rim will be set not by us, but by them.
|
|
quickplay
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 733
|
Post by quickplay on Nov 22, 2016 19:45:58 GMT -5
Where in all of this do the actual American people come into play? I don't know if protecting "American" corporations is as hot a selling point as it used to be...
|
|
This Just In
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Bold Prediction: The Hoyas will win at least 1 BE game in 2023.
Posts: 10,592
|
Post by This Just In on Nov 22, 2016 20:34:20 GMT -5
Where in all of this do the actual American people come into play? I don't know if protecting "American" corporations is as hot a selling point as it used to be... Private International Tribunals Roll back of environmental laws Patents increased for an additional 70 years Companies can sue nations over Surgeon General warning on cigarette boxes Net neutrality gone Harsher penalties for breaking digital laws. Outsourcing of more jobs. The American people don't come into play, this is a race to the bottom.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 22, 2016 20:49:40 GMT -5
We are all aware that the global economy is here to stay, right? And without NAFTA, all those "US jobs lost to Mexico because of NAFTA" would have eventually just been "US jobs lost to Mexico (or some other country with cheap labor)". Global supply chains will seek out the lowest possible costs, and there's nothing we can do about it that's going to save American jobs. Unless we think US workers are going to start to be willing to work for 25 cents a day making sneakers and undershirts. All the hand-wringing over the ability of corporations to sue governments? Investor-State Dispute Settlement has been in trade deals in some form or another since 1959. The US is in like 50 deals already that have ISDS provisions in them. And you know why? So American companies can use it offensively. You think some Malaysian company will sue the US government over a some nonsense related to trade? Go ahead Malaysia, flex your muscles on us. Knock yourself out. We'll work with everyone else instead. We use this stuff because we have the upper hand in 99.8% of trade conversations. Small countries can't use it, because large countries are able to F them over in other ways if they even threaten it. And China? China won't be in TPP at the outset - which is GREAT for us (if we're in it). Because when China does want to join 5 years from now, guess who sets the terms? Not the Chinese, looking to get into the club. Nope - the club members get to tell China the terms of engagement. But we'll back out of it because Trump has to pander to his voters who believe that somehow, someway, we're going to start manufacturing a bunch of Edited in Ohio, and Michigan, and Pennsylvania, and West Virginia...which isn't going to happen (spoiler alert). And now the rest of the TPP nations are going to turn to China, and trade policy for the Pacific Rim will be set not by us, but by them. Nice analysis. Our unemployment rate is below 5% which is essentially full employment. Of course there will always be job instability and dislocation due to new technologies and research. Kodak is basically gone. There are no more printers. Trump cannot save coal miners jobs if the demand for coal goes away. Actually, the long term outlook for coal mining is dismal. Coal gassification is much cleaner, but it utilizes non mineable coal. It should be noted that almost all of the jobs lost are low paying jobs that workers in this country wouldn't want anyway. My only concern now is Trump's threat to place a 35% import tax on American products made in Mexico. A bad BAD idea. Protective tariff's are always a bad idea.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 23, 2016 9:21:11 GMT -5
My only concern now is Trump's threat to place a 35% import tax on American products made in Mexico. A bad BAD idea. Protective tariff's are always a bad idea. Terrible idea - big economic powers have so many other things in the toolbox when it comes to trade. Tariffs are for small countries without other leverage who are trying to protect something. If we levy a 35% tariff on - say - sneakers, what's going to happen? It's still going to be a lot cheaper for Nike to make sneakers in Bangladesh or Vietnam. So they'll still make them there, pay the 35% to send those shoes to the US and mark them up by 35% when they put them on the shelves here. It's a lose/lose: no new jobs for the US, and higher prices for American consumers. The United States is THE world leader in services (80% of our economy, depending on how broadly you want to define it). That's our comparative advantage. We should be killing ourselves to figure out how to export our services everywhere in the world (and TPP and TTIP would be huge for that). Instead, political rhetoric gets focused on how we can "compete" with China and Mexico on manufacturing - where they have the comparative advantage in the form of cheaper labor. It would be like the US saying "Hey, we're the best in the world at basketball and could focus our sports resources on sending our best basketball players out into the rest of the world and market the hell out of them to our advantage. But India and Pakistan are KILLING us in cricket, so we should try to compete in cricket. Let's spend more time, energy, and resources there than on basketball." A fool's errand. From a strategic economic perspective, it's a losing game to tell Americans that you're going to bring back manufacturing jobs. The global economy doesn't care that you're skilled in metalwork for automobiles and would rather live in Sandusky, Ohio than anywhere else in the country (or the world). But if a Presidential candidate can convince you that he can make that work for you, that's political gold. And for all the talk about China, China is actually becoming a more expensive place to produce things (although still a lot cheaper than the US ever will be). But companies are looking elsewhere for cheaper labor. China itself is outsourcing more and more to the poorest parts of Africa.
|
|
quickplay
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 733
|
Post by quickplay on Nov 23, 2016 10:54:15 GMT -5
My only concern now is Trump's threat to place a 35% import tax on American products made in Mexico. A bad BAD idea. Protective tariff's are always a bad idea. Terrible idea - big economic powers have so many other things in the toolbox when it comes to trade. Tariffs are for small countries without other leverage who are trying to protect something. If we levy a 35% tariff on - say - sneakers, what's going to happen? It's still going to be a lot cheaper for Nike to make sneakers in Bangladesh or Vietnam. So they'll still make them there, pay the 35% to send those shoes to the US and mark them up by 35% when they put them on the shelves here. It's a lose/lose: no new jobs for the US, and higher prices for American consumers. The United States is THE world leader in services (80% of our economy, depending on how broadly you want to define it). That's our comparative advantage. We should be killing ourselves to figure out how to export our services everywhere in the world (and TPP and TTIP would be huge for that). Instead, political rhetoric gets focused on how we can "compete" with China and Mexico on manufacturing - where they have the comparative advantage in the form of cheaper labor. It would be like the US saying "Hey, we're the best in the world at basketball and could focus our sports resources on sending our best basketball players out into the rest of the world and market the hell out of them to our advantage. But India and Pakistan are KILLING us in cricket, so we should try to compete in cricket. Let's spend more time, energy, and resources there than on basketball." A fool's errand. From a strategic economic perspective, it's a losing game to tell Americans that you're going to bring back manufacturing jobs. The global economy doesn't care that you're skilled in metalwork for automobiles and would rather live in Sandusky, Ohio than anywhere else in the country (or the world). But if a Presidential candidate can convince you that he can make that work for you, that's political gold. And for all the talk about China, China is actually becoming a more expensive place to produce things (although still a lot cheaper than the US ever will be). But companies are looking elsewhere for cheaper labor. China itself is outsourcing more and more to the poorest parts of Africa. I'm sorry but I think you're still missing how much of a non-answer this is to the millions of people who see no viable economic futures in this country. So many people just start with the presumption of 'globalism is here to stay therefore you all must adjust to this form of it' as if it was some actual set of natural laws and not a system designed by international corporation to facilitate the most efficient profit-making structures for them throughout the world. The whole 'free market' of globalism is b.s. It's a free market for capital. That's it. Even in your sneaker example, shouldn't some brilliant new company figure out a way to produce shoes in the U.S. at a lower cost when that hypothetical 35% tariff is taken into account? The "market solutions" of globalism have been nothing but a race to the bottom, allowing multinationals to incorporate in the country that gives them the best tax advantages, actually exist in the country that gives the best tax advantages for that, hire workers in the country with the lowest wages and worker protections, set up factories in the countries with the lowest environmental standards, all while lobbying lobbying lobbying to gain further advantages. So after taking advantage of all the DIFFERENCES in systems around the world, the corporation then gets the protection of 'all countries must be treated the same' as far as tariffs/trade goes? How does that make sense? How is "globalism" anything but protectionism for corporations instead of people? "We should be killing ourselves to figure out how to export our services everywhere in the world" 1) What does this even mean? 2) If it's possible, what would be the continued advantage of our services? Within a few years won't the 'exportable service economy' just shift to a place where it's cheaper to produce? It's nothing but a race to the bottom. We use our military to protect American corporate interests. We use our trade policy to protect American corporate interests. These interests are now almost entirely removed from the interests of the American people. Unemployment at 5% ignores how Editedty the jobs that have been created are and how half of America has less than a month of savings. Things are not improving in a fundamental way. At what point is "we're a service economy, just figure it out!" going to stop being an acceptable long-term trade policy?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 23, 2016 12:27:18 GMT -5
Terrible idea - big economic powers have so many other things in the toolbox when it comes to trade. Tariffs are for small countries without other leverage who are trying to protect something. If we levy a 35% tariff on - say - sneakers, what's going to happen? It's still going to be a lot cheaper for Nike to make sneakers in Bangladesh or Vietnam. So they'll still make them there, pay the 35% to send those shoes to the US and mark them up by 35% when they put them on the shelves here. It's a lose/lose: no new jobs for the US, and higher prices for American consumers. The United States is THE world leader in services (80% of our economy, depending on how broadly you want to define it). That's our comparative advantage. We should be killing ourselves to figure out how to export our services everywhere in the world (and TPP and TTIP would be huge for that). Instead, political rhetoric gets focused on how we can "compete" with China and Mexico on manufacturing - where they have the comparative advantage in the form of cheaper labor. It would be like the US saying "Hey, we're the best in the world at basketball and could focus our sports resources on sending our best basketball players out into the rest of the world and market the hell out of them to our advantage. But India and Pakistan are KILLING us in cricket, so we should try to compete in cricket. Let's spend more time, energy, and resources there than on basketball." A fool's errand. From a strategic economic perspective, it's a losing game to tell Americans that you're going to bring back manufacturing jobs. The global economy doesn't care that you're skilled in metalwork for automobiles and would rather live in Sandusky, Ohio than anywhere else in the country (or the world). But if a Presidential candidate can convince you that he can make that work for you, that's political gold. And for all the talk about China, China is actually becoming a more expensive place to produce things (although still a lot cheaper than the US ever will be). But companies are looking elsewhere for cheaper labor. China itself is outsourcing more and more to the poorest parts of Africa. I'm sorry but I think you're still missing how much of a non-answer this is to the millions of people who see no viable economic futures in this country. So many people just start with the presumption of 'globalism is here to stay therefore you all must adjust to this form of it' as if it was some actual set of natural laws and not a system designed by international corporation to facilitate the most efficient profit-making structures for them throughout the world. The whole 'free market' of globalism is b.s. It's a free market for capital. That's it. Even in your sneaker example, shouldn't some brilliant new company figure out a way to produce shoes in the U.S. at a lower cost when that hypothetical 35% tariff is taken into account? The "market solutions" of globalism have been nothing but a race to the bottom, allowing multinationals to incorporate in the country that gives them the best tax advantages, actually exist in the country that gives the best tax advantages for that, hire workers in the country with the lowest wages and worker protections, set up factories in the countries with the lowest environmental standards, all while lobbying lobbying lobbying to gain further advantages. So after taking advantage of all the DIFFERENCES in systems around the world, the corporation then gets the protection of 'all countries must be treated the same' as far as tariffs/trade goes? How does that make sense? How is "globalism" anything but protectionism for corporations instead of people? "We should be killing ourselves to figure out how to export our services everywhere in the world" 1) What does this even mean? 2) If it's possible, what would be the continued advantage of our services? Within a few years won't the 'exportable service economy' just shift to a place where it's cheaper to produce? It's nothing but a race to the bottom. We use our military to protect American corporate interests. We use our trade policy to protect American corporate interests. These interests are now almost entirely removed from the interests of the American people. Unemployment at 5% ignores how Editedty the jobs that have been created are and how half of America has less than a month of savings. Things are not improving in a fundamental way. At what point is "we're a service economy, just figure it out!" going to stop being an acceptable long-term trade policy? Generally speaking, I don't disagree with you - it's obvious that this is a non-answer for those who struggle economically in this country. But you can't un-ring the bell on this stuff. We should figure out how to exploit what we can where we can. We can't just go into protectionist mode and expect that the rest of the world will agree to not compete. The sneaker example is a simplistic one, but it's unfortunately it highlights the crux of the issue. It's just not possible to create a sneaker company that will: 1. Set up all of its operations and manufacturing in the United States 2. Hire all American workers 3. Pay a living US wage (presumably, more than minimum wage) to all of those workers 4. Sell sneakers at a price that's competitive, and 5. Make money/Stay in business for very long at any scale That's a magic bullet that doesn't exist. There might be some room in the economy for some small-scale, niche-market businesses like this, but not that much. The majority of people are still going to buy Nikes. What are the interests of the American people? Full employment, with living wages for all? If so, great. But doesn't that come in direct conflict with the interest of the American people of having access to as many products as possible at the cheapest possible prices? Supply chains are global and they won't stop being global. Just because it's a cesspool (race to the bottom, low wages, low environmental standards...) doesn't mean it can be un-cesspooled. We as a global society can and should hold companies accountable when they do ty things, like exploit child labor or set up shop in countries that are lax on environmental standards. But we generally don't. People continue to buy iPhones no matter how many Foxconn employees in China throw themselves off of the roof of the plant. You said that globalization is just a structure that companies set up to "facilitate the most efficient profit-making structures". Well, yeah...that's what companies try to do - they try to make money. And globalization isn't a structure that someone set up. It's the natural result of companies trying to make as much money as possible for their shareholders. And if American companies didn't do it, everyone else would - and American companies would be at a disadvantage when competing with everyone else. (ASIDE: What is an "American company" anyway? But that's a longer and different discussion!) To your question about losing potential comparative advantage on services if they become cheaper somewhere else? I don't think that's so much of an issue. Part of the reason we have such an advantage in services is our overall level of education as a country (e.g., our legal services are in demand globally because we are perceived to have the best law schools and law firms in the world). It also matters that English tends to be the language of business globally. Not sure those things are going to change anytime soon. Unskilled or lower-skilled labor is a lot cheaper and easier to find. Bangladesh isn't going to suddenly build 50 top-notch law schools and b-schools and start cranking out cheaper competitors to US services. There's a lot of in the global economy and trading system, but no country can afford to not participate in it as freely and fully as possible. Especially not the country with the largest economy in the world. It sucks like hell for the former factory worker in the Rust Belt struggling to get by - and I totally understand why he/she would latch on to that political message ("Someone is looking out for me!"). But short of every country and company in the world giving up trade, outsourcing, and offshoring at the same time, I don't know how you change the big picture.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 23, 2016 14:06:34 GMT -5
Lot of good points here. Cam, the sneakers and undershirt analogy is not appropriate here. This started with Trump trying to put a 35% Tariff on American company products that are made in Mexico. There haven't been any undershirts or sneakers made in this country for many years. The American Auto industry may move their "assembly" plants to Mexico, but at this point very little more will go there that isn't already there. Also remember, that 6 million American jobs rely on Mexican imports. Most important, this type of Tariff will enrage our neighbors to the south. In my humble opinion, this is a very very bad move. And yes Cam I agree with you. the big picture is not going to change (in spite of what our politicians may say).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 28, 2016 9:14:37 GMT -5
Lot of good points here. Cam, the sneakers and undershirt analogy is not appropriate here. This started with Trump trying to put a 35% Tariff on American company products that are made in Mexico. There haven't been any undershirts or sneakers made in this country for many years. The American Auto industry may move their "assembly" plants to Mexico, but at this point very little more will go there that isn't already there. Also remember, that 6 million American jobs rely on Mexican imports. Most important, this type of Tariff will enrage our neighbors to the south. In my humble opinion, this is a very very bad move. And yes Cam I agree with you. the big picture is not going to change (in spite of what our politicians may say). Point taken on the specific tariff issue. I was making a bit of a different point about tariffs and why big economies don't/shouldn't use them. Another issue here in terms of job loss is technology and automation. Blame China and Mexico all you want, but it's really the robots that are ruling the world. No one thinks that we should roll back the technological advances that have been made. But for every high-skilled job that gets created in the further development of automation technologies (engineers, scientists, designers), who knows how many low-skilled jobs get wiped out. And even things that aren't major advances bump low-skilled jobs: Every grocery store in the country has had barcode scanners and credit card readers for decades. But it's only in the past few years that many (most?) have reconfigured their set-ups with self-checkout lanes. So your local store hires half as many people to work the check-out lanes as they did a decade ago. And those jobs aren't coming back ever, either. The desire to bring manufacturing jobs back to the United States on a large scale is rooted in a bygone place and time, and that the US economy is never going back there. But let's say hypothetically that we somehow get a ton of auto manufacturing back into the country. Is that really where we should invest our resources? What will the demand for cars be in another 10-20 years? When I was 16, all I wanted to do was get my drivers' license and buy a car. Many 16-year olds now don't, because Uber. The sharing economy means that fewer goods are needed, so fewer goods will be manufactured.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 28, 2016 9:56:38 GMT -5
Your comment about UBER strikes a bell. I live in south Florida. I just was speaking with a senior who had just sold his only car. His reasoning was that when one factors in the cost of buying the car, maintenance, care washes, and gas, etc., it was much cheaper to use Uber when he wants to go somewhere local. He stated that he was going to Orlando in a few weeks and he would just lease a car for the week. He calculated that he would save $1-2000 a year that way. You are correct. Things are continuing to change.
|
|
This Just In
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Bold Prediction: The Hoyas will win at least 1 BE game in 2023.
Posts: 10,592
|
Post by This Just In on Jan 23, 2017 15:14:30 GMT -5
Trump Abandons Trans-Pacific Partnership, Obama’s Signature Trade DealPresident Trump formally abandoned the Trans-Pacific Partnership on Monday, pulling away from Asia and scrapping his predecessor’s most significant trade deal on his first full weekday in office, administration officials said.
Mr. Trump sharply criticized the partnership agreement during last year’s campaign, calling it a bad deal for American workers. Although the deal had not been approved by Congress, the decision to withdraw the American signature at the start of Mr. Trump’s administration is a signal that he plans to follow through on promises to take a more aggressive stance against foreign competitors.
Good to see him coming through on a campaign promise.
|
|
aristides
Bulldog (over 250 posts)
Posts: 341
|
Post by aristides on Jan 23, 2017 16:50:12 GMT -5
I'm sad to see it go. It seemed like an incredibly complex calculation that was possibly going to be a short-term loss for the American worker but would hopefully be a long term win for the US economy years down the road. I think these kind of trade-offs are always going to be politically unpopular.
|
|