One Thing Johnson Gets Right

[Chris]

https://i.snag.gy/f9th34.jpg

[Peter1469]

The left can't get out of the way. The power of the central state is their focus.

[Mac-7]

New mexico is a beautiful state physically.

But it is overrun with illegal aliens from old mexico and very poor.

Its what all of America may look like in 50 years if idiots like johnson can keep the border wide open

[Truth Detector]

New Mexico is a Liberal Blue State....I wonder if Gary Johnson had any hand in that?

[Truth Detector]

Where I agree with Gary J.:

(1) Term limits
(2) Real reductions to bring spending in line with revenues, without tax increases.
(3) Education

Where I do not agree with him:
....everything else.

https://www.johnsonweld.com/issues

[Chris]

Highest job growth rate of any governors. Simply by leaving business alone.

"I heartily accept the motto,—“That government is best which governs least;” and I should like to see it acted up to more rapidly and systematically. Carried out, it finally amounts to this, which I also believe,—“That government is best which governs not at all;” and when men are prepared for it, that will be the kind of government which they will have. Government is at best but an expedient; but most governments are usually, and all governments are sometimes, inexpedient." --Henry David Thoreau


You all liberals--Democrats and Republicans alike--fail to see that but comment on irrelevancies.

[Mac-7]

Highest job growth rate of any governors. Simply by leaving business alone.

"I heartily accept the motto,—“That government is best which governs least;” and I should like to see it acted up to more rapidly and systematically. Carried out, it finally amounts to this, which I also believe,—“That government is best which governs not at all;” and when men are prepared for it, that will be the kind of government which they will have. Government is at best but an expedient; but most governments are usually, and all governments are sometimes, inexpedient." --Henry David Thoreau


You all liberals--Democrats and Republicans alike--fail to see that but comment on irrelevancies.

And yet anarchists who dont vote but merely stand around shouting "THE END IS NEAR!" are only 1% of the population.

[Chris]

And yet anarchists who dont vote but merely stand around shouting "THE END IS NEAR!" are only 1% of the population.

^^Deflects again from a topic he dislikes. Why? P.J. O'Rourke captured is well: "The Democrats are the party that says government will make you smarter, taller, richer, and remove the crabgrass on your lawn. The Republicans are the party that says government doesn't work and then they get elected and prove it."


The end is near? Never heard that.

[Truth Detector]

This is what his campaign web site claims on his record:
•Left office with New Mexico as one of the only four states in the country with a balanced budget
•Left New Mexico with a budget surplus
•Used Line Item Veto thousands of times to trim the budget
•Vetoed 750 bills during his time in office; more than all other governors combined
•Cut over 1,200 government jobs without firing anyone
•Created more than 20,000 new jobs
•First New Mexico Governor to challenge education status quo and propose statewide voucher program
•Restored State General Fund reserves to more than $222 million from a low of $28.1 million
•Limited annual state budget growth to 5.0% during eight years in office
•Cut taxes 14 times while never raising them—a first for New Mexico
•Vetoed 32% of the total number of bills submitted for his signature

This all sounds good, right?

Well, no. Yes, the budget rose 5% per year during his time in office. Unfortunately that's a roughly 50% increase in the size of the State Government during those eight years.

That might be ok if the rate of increase was less than the rate of inflation. So let's check the rate of inflation and see if Governor Johnson was telling the truth or if he's being less-than-honest with the public.

In 1995 the CPI index stood at 150.3. In 2003 when Johnson left office it stood at 181.7. That's a 20.9% increase over the same eight years.

In other words Gary Johnson increased spending in New Mexico at approximately 240% the rate of inflation -- or about double and a half as fast as prices rose.

Do you define that as "fiscally conservative" or "responsible"? I do not. Further, can you find any part of spending in this chart that he actually cut during his time in office or did every single one of these bars get bigger?

Then there's the claim of a "balanced budget". That's a nice claim. Unfortunately it was achieved by lying, just as it has been in the other states, because the amount of debt the State Government had outstanding nearly doubled during those very same years.

That's a gross $2.78 billion increase in debt during those years. The population of the state was (as of 2003) 1.87 million, so Governor Johnson added about $1,500 in debt to the financial responsibility of every man, woman and child in New Mexico during his administration and that's only for the state itself -- municipal governments added another billion, so the total was well over $2,000 per person.

Is that "fiscally conservative"?

Nobody should vote for this man believing he will cut their debt load or actually shrink one single line item in the Federal Budget, as his history shows that over eight years as Governor of a small state he saddled every single resident with more than $1,500 worth of additional debt, sanctioned municipal and local governments adding roughly $1,000 more, and in fact added to State Spending in all of the categories he claims he will "control" or "cut" including pensions, health care and education.

Not one of those areas was cut in size during his time in office.

And that, my friends, is a fact.
https://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=210816

[Truth Detector]

Highest job growth rate of any governors. Simply by leaving business alone.

I cannot find anything to support this claim; would you happen to have a link? I do know that he served during a massive growth phase in America until the 2000 recession kicked in.

[Chris]

I cannot find anything to support this claim; would you happen to have a link? I do know that he served during a massive growth phase in America until the 2000 recession kicked in.


Well, your market ticker claims are nice too but unsubstantiated.


The topic here is what can the government or a President to to create jobs. Unless you (generic) are a Keynesian and believe in multipliers neither top-down nor bottom-up stimulus works.

I'll look into OP claim as time permits.

[Chris]

So far I find, from your link, uncontested:


* Created more than 20,000 new jobs

Not bad for doing nothing to create them other than getting out of the way.

And


According to a National Review Online analysis of seasonally adjusted employment data (looking at the total number of those employed) from the Bureau of Labor website, Gary Johnson has the best record of the official candidates, with a job-growth rate of 11.6 percent during his tenure.

@ http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/270098/which-gop-candidate-has-best-job-growth-record-katrina-trinko

[Mac-7]

I wonder how many of the new jobs went to legal residents and American citizens?

Not many I suspect.

[Chris]

I wonder how many of the new jobs went to legal residents and American citizens?

Not many I suspect.

And the basis for your speculation is what pray tell.

[Mac-7]

And the basis for your speculation is what pray tell.

New mexico is infested with illegal aliens

[Chris]

New mexico is infested with illegal aliens

And?

[Cletus]

New Mexico is a Liberal Blue State....I wonder if Gary Johnson had any hand in that?

Johnson was a good governor. His biggest problem was knocking heads with the Democrats in the Round House. At the time he was governor, the Speaker of the New Mexico House was an old, corrupt, but pretty much untouchable type who ran the legislature like it was Tammany Hall. Considering the opposition he faced, Governor Johnson accomplished a lot more than anyone expected.

[nic34]

But wait!


‘Never Gary Johnson’: He’s Not Conservative and Not Even All That Libertarian



When Johnson took the tiller in New Mexico in 1995, the budget stood at $4.397 billion. When he left in 2003, it had grown to $7.721 billion, an increase of 7.29 percent a year. Of the eleven governors who filed to run for president this year (two Democrats, Johnson, and eight Republicans), only one had a worse record on spending growth.

In New Mexico, Bill Richardson, Johnson’s Democratic successor, clocked in a little better than he did, but Richardson’s successor, Susana Martinez, has shown what a fiscal conservative looks like: New Mexico currently spends less than it did when she took office. It’s not just at a state level that being more fiscally conservative than Johnson is a bipartisan achievement. Federal spending during the time Johnson was in office grew at an average annual rate of 4.49 percent.


http://www.nationalreview.com/article/435704/gary-johnson-libertarian-party-2016-conservatives

[Chris]

Johnson was a good governor. His biggest problem was knocking heads with the Democrats in the Round House. At the time he was governor, the Speaker of the New Mexico House was an old, corrupt, but pretty much untouchable type who ran the legislature like it was Tammany Hall. Considering the opposition he faced, Governor Johnson accomplished a lot more than anyone expected.


But wait!


‘Never Gary Johnson’: He’s Not Conservative and Not Even All That Libertarian



When Johnson took the tiller in New Mexico in 1995, the budget stood at $4.397 billion. When he left in 2003, it had grown to $7.721 billion, an increase of 7.29 percent a year. Of the eleven governors who filed to run for president this year (two Democrats, Johnson, and eight Republicans), only one had a worse record on spending growth.

In New Mexico, Bill Richardson, Johnson’s Democratic successor, clocked in a little better than he did, but Richardson’s successor, Susana Martinez, has shown what a fiscal conservative looks like: New Mexico currently spends less than it did when she took office. It’s not just at a state level that being more fiscally conservative than Johnson is a bipartisan achievement. Federal spending during the time Johnson was in office grew at an average annual rate of 4.49 percent.


http://www.nationalreview.com/article/435704/gary-johnson-libertarian-party-2016-conservatives



You probably just can't bring yourself to blame Democrats.


The topic is whether or not the government can create jobs. Doesn't seem Reps or Dems want to discuss that. Could it be that Clump is promising to create jobs?

[Tahuyaman]

I disagree with Gary Johnson on some social issues, but we both agree that those are not the business of government. He would be an obstacle to the big government types.

I'm with Johnson.

[nic34]

The topic is whether or not the government can create jobs. Doesn't seem Reps or Dems want to discuss that. Could it be that Clump is promising to create jobs?

Except that both of Johnsons successors Dem and Rep did better with NM's budget....

[Cletus]

I would vote for Johnson if Clinton did not pose such a threat to the country. She must be defeated and there is just no way Gary can do that.

Because of that, I am compelled to vote for the only candidate that stands a chance of keeping her out of the White House. It is not so much a vote for Trump as it is a vote against Clinton.

[Truth Detector]

Well, your market ticker claims are nice too but unsubstantiated.


The topic here is what can the government or a President to to create jobs. Unless you (generic) are a Keynesian and believe in multipliers neither top-down nor bottom-up stimulus works.

I'll look into OP claim as time permits.

I am pretty sure the topic is about Gary Johnson; otherwise, why have him as the subject? I do agree with him that Government cannot create the jobs; but Government can certainly engage in policies/regulations that stifle that job creation. One of the things Gary did do is leave the people of New Mexico with a massive debt bill.

Do you think massive Government debt creates a pro-job environment?

[Chris]

Except that both of Johnsons successors Dem and Rep did better with NM's budget....

Did they create jobs?

[Chris]

I would vote for Johnson if Clinton did not pose such a threat to the country. She must be defeated and there is just no way Gary can do that.

Because of that, I am compelled to vote for the only candidate that stands a chance of keeping her out of the White House. It is not so much a vote for Trump as it is a vote against Clinton.

I don't agree with that stance but won't argue it. People have to vote as they see right.

[Cletus]

Except that both of Johnsons successors Dem and Rep did better with NM's budget....

Your citation notes that Governor Johnson increased the size of the budget, but it doesn't say why. It is slanted and you are only seeing part of the story.

Gary Johnson was a good governor. Bill Richardson was a terrible governor. I like Governor Martinez. I would put her on the ticket with Gary if I could.

[Truth Detector]

So far I find, from your link, uncontested:

Not bad for doing nothing to create them other than getting out of the way.

And

@ http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/270098/which-gop-candidate-has-best-job-growth-record-katrina-trinko

You might want to re-read that article you linked much more carefully. It doesn't support the claims made by you or Johnson.

[Chris]

I am pretty sure the topic is about Gary Johnson; otherwise, why have him as the subject? I do agree with him that Government cannot create the jobs; but Government can certainly engage in policies/regulations that stifle that job creation. One of the things Gary did do is leave the people of New Mexico with a massive debt bill.

Do you think massive Government debt creates a pro-job environment?


Uh, the title is "One Thing Johnson Gets Right". That thing is whether the government can create jobs. I should know, I created the topic.

Do you think the government creates jobs?

[Chris]

You might want to re-read that article you linked much more carefully. It doesn't support the claims made by you or Johnson.

I cited the article. Did you have an argument?

[Cletus]

I don't agree with that stance but won't argue it. People have to vote as they see right.

Do you think Johnson has a snowball's chance in Hell of defeating Clinton?

If you do not, voting for him is nothing more than a feel good measure that accomplished nothing more than to help Clinton get into office.

[Truth Detector]

Johnson was a good governor. His biggest problem was knocking heads with the Democrats in the Round House. At the time he was governor, the Speaker of the New Mexico House was an old, corrupt, but pretty much untouchable type who ran the legislature like it was Tammany Hall. Considering the opposition he faced, Governor Johnson accomplished a lot more than anyone expected.

I totally agree; and I believe he did much better than his predecessor or the leftist twit that followed him. BUT, the claims that he had the best job growth record of all 50 states, specious at best.

Like I said, there are a very few things I agree with him on; most of his platform is nonsense. But that said, compared to Jill Stein, Gary is a Mensa candidate. ;)

[Truth Detector]

The topic is whether or not the government can create jobs. Doesn't seem Reps or Dems want to discuss that. Could it be that Clump is promising to create jobs?

If it is NOT about Gary Johnson, why have his claims in the thread topic???? Why not just ask the question? I don't think you are being very honest here.

[Truth Detector]

Your citation notes that Governor Johnson increased the size of the budget, but it doesn't say why. It is slanted and you are only seeing part of the story.

Gary Johnson was a good governor. Bill Richardson was a terrible governor. I like Governor Martinez. I would put her on the ticket with Gary if I could.

I would vote for her as President. ;)

[Truth Detector]

I cited the article. Did you have an argument?

...and you didn't read it very carefully because it didn't support the claim. Did you have one?

[Chris]

...and you didn't read it very carefully because it didn't support the claim. Did you have one?

Was that supposed to be an argument?

[Truth Detector]

Uh, the title is "One Thing Johnson Gets Right".

...and you believe that this doesn't make him the subject??? Seriously??? :biglaugh:

Let's do a poll and find out.

[Chris]

If it is NOT about Gary Johnson, why have his claims in the thread topic???? Why not just ask the question? I don't think you are being very honest here.

It's about the one claim he gets right.

English could be your friend.


And you stoop to insults already. Will emotional outbursts follow?

[Ethereal]

It's about the one claim he gets right.

English could be your friend.


And you stoop to insults already. Will emotional outbursts follow?

Wasting your time with that one.

[Chris]

...and you believe that this doesn't make him the subject??? Seriously??? :biglaugh:

Let's do a poll and find out.


Quiz: What do you call putting words in someone else's mouth?

Buzzz: Strawman.

[Truth Detector]

Was that supposed to be an argument?

Do you like playing semantical games while avoiding the topic? The article you cited did not support the claim that Johnson created the most jobs of 50 states. You're attempting to suggest that it does; why?

[Chris]

Do you like playing semantical games while avoiding the topic? The article you cited did not support the claim that Johnson created the most jobs of 50 states. You're attempting to suggest that it does; why?


The topic is whether the government can create jobs. Do you think so?

[Truth Detector]

It's about the one claim he gets right.

...which makes HIM the subject. DER


English could be your friend.

Apparently it is not yours; but troll like condescension you have down pat. Fascinating that you now feel compelled to troll your own thread rather than argue the point of it.


And you stoop to insults already.

Yep, because in your myopic world, claiming that English is not my friend is a way of not insulting right hypocrite? Can you identify the insults; or is claiming your not being honest now to be interpreted as a personal insult. Damned funny.


Will emotional outbursts follow?

I am sure they will follow with you; along with stomping your little feet and trolling your own thread to avoid substance.

I get it; you're going to now troll your own thread when embarrassed by your stupid claims. ;)

Next step; a thread ban so that you can engage in group think rather than debate. LOL

[Truth Detector]

Quiz: What do you call putting words in someone else's mouth?

Buzzz: Strawman.

:rollseyes: This is too lame for words.

[Truth Detector]

The topic is whether the government can create jobs. Do you think so?

I think that Government can engage in policies that create a positive job environment or a negative job environment. How can Government NOT impact job growth and creation? Government policies are an integral part of that process. Bad policies and bad market timing can lead to less growth: Obamunism. Good policies along with good timing in markets leads to more job growth; Reagan/Clinton.

Government growth CREATES job growth; but does it create the kind of economic growth a society needs; well, not always in my opinion.

Perhaps you can explain how Government doesn't impact job growth in any way?

[Chris]

https://i.snag.gy/f9th34.jpg

^^A reminder of the topic: Can the government create jobs?

[Chris]

I think that Government can engage in policies that create a positive job environment or a negative job environment. How can Government NOT impact job growth and creation? Government policies are an integral part of that process. Bad policies and bad market timing can lead to less growth: Obamunism. Good policies along with good timing in markets leads to more job growth; Reagan/Clinton.

Government growth CREATES job growth; but does it create the kind of economic growth a society needs; well, not always in my opinion.

Perhaps you can explain how Government doesn't impact job growth in any way?


Government growth CREATES job growth

As a big government con, could you explain that?

When we speak of the government creating jobs, we don't generally mean creating government jobs but private sector jobs.

But the government cannot do that. It's meddling only creates a costly regulatory environment that restricts job growth. Take minimum wage regulation for example.

[Dr. Who]

...which makes HIM the subject. DER



Apparently it is not yours; but troll like condescension you have down pat. Fascinating that you now feel compelled to troll your own thread rather than argue the point of it.



Yep, because in your myopic world, claiming that English is not my friend is a way of not insulting right hypocrite? Can you identify the insults; or is claiming your not being honest now to be interpreted as a personal insult. Damned funny.



I am sure they will follow with you; along with stomping your little feet and trolling your own thread to avoid substance.

I get it; you're going to now troll your own thread when embarrassed by your stupid claims. ;)

Next step; a thread ban so that you can engage in group think rather than debate. LOL

Discuss the topic, not the poster or you will be banned from this thread.

[Truth Detector]

As a big government con, could you explain that?

As a moderator and the thread author, can you not make false strawman claims like the above? What do you need explained to you? That when Government hires it creates more jobs? How much simpler can I make this for you? :biglaugh:

Here is the rest you left out of my comment or chose to ignore to remove any doubt about your pompous arrogance; but does it create the kind of economic growth a society needs; well, not always in my opinion.



When we speak of the government creating jobs, we don't generally mean creating government jobs but private sector jobs.

When you speak of Government creating jobs, how can you ignore....wait for it....the jobs GOVERNMENT actually created?


But the government cannot do that. It's meddling only creates a costly regulatory environment that restricts job growth. Take minimum wage regulation for example.

I never argued that Government meddling wasn't costly or restrictive of PRIVATE sector job growth. I've also never made an argument FOR the minimum wage. ;)

[debbietoo]

The left can't get out of the way. The power of the central state is their focus.

I went to Gary Johnson's website and really like what he promotes on the "issues". He's not too far to the right in my opinion. I also like his ideas on taxation. Taxation according to consumer spending. It's a great idea and very simple. I wonder how it would work in real time. But he doesn't mention anything about social security or safety nets. And some of his plans on how to do things are very vague, such as social security and the policies that are already in place. If Johnson would be more detailed and articulate on the issues, I think more Americans would contribute to his campaign and vote for him.

[Mac-7]

^^Deflects again from a topic he dislikes. Why? P.J. O'Rourke captured is well: "The Democrats are the party that says government will make you smarter, taller, richer, and remove the crabgrass on your lawn. The Republicans are the party that says government doesn't work and then they get elected and prove it."


The end is near? Never heard that.

You dont vote chris.

so your opinion is worthless

[Truth Detector]

I went to Gary Johnson's website and really like what he promotes on the "issues". He's not too far to the right in my opinion. I also like his ideas on taxation. Taxation according to consumer spending. It's a great idea and very simple. I wonder how it would work in real time. But he doesn't mention anything about social security or safety nets. And some of his plans on how to do things are very vague, such as social security and the policies that are already in place. If Johnson would be more detailed and articulate on the issues, I think more Americans would contribute to his campaign and vote for him.

I noticed the same thing about his plans; they are as vague as Trumps, Hillary's and anyone else who has run for office.

Gary used to say he was for the Fair Tax; that alone would almost get my vote if he weren't so close to a leftist loon on drugs and everything else.

So it's official; Debbietoo is for the Fair Tax. Something we can agree on. :)

[Truth Detector]

You dont vote chris.

so your opinion is worthless

^Spot on; but he'll continue pretending his OPINIONS hold more weight than anyone else's on the planet. :biglaugh:

[Chris]

You dont vote chris.

so your opinion is worthless

Are you incapable of sticking to topic and arguing a point?

[Chris]

As a moderator and the thread author, can you not make false strawman claims like the above? What do you need explained to you? That when Government hires it creates more jobs? How much simpler can I make this for you? :biglaugh:

Here is the rest you left out of my comment or chose to ignore to remove any doubt about your pompous arrogance; but does it create the kind of economic growth a society needs; well, not always in my opinion.




When you speak of Government creating jobs, how can you ignore....wait for it....the jobs GOVERNMENT actually created?



I never argued that Government meddling wasn't costly or restrictive of PRIVATE sector job growth. I've also never made an argument FOR the minimum wage. ;)



After I tell you what I think and meant, for you to tell me what I think and meant is arguing a straw man.

[Chris]

I went to Gary Johnson's website and really like what he promotes on the "issues". He's not too far to the right in my opinion. I also like his ideas on taxation. Taxation according to consumer spending. It's a great idea and very simple. I wonder how it would work in real time. But he doesn't mention anything about social security or safety nets. And some of his plans on how to do things are very vague, such as social security and the policies that are already in place. If Johnson would be more detailed and articulate on the issues, I think more Americans would contribute to his campaign and vote for him.

What do you think of his idea that the government doesn't create jobs?

[Chris]

^Spot on; but he'll continue pretending his OPINIONS hold more weight than anyone else's on the planet. :biglaugh:

Making up more straw men.

[Chris]

Folks, I'm really not interested in Johnson. I'd like to see his and Stein's ideas heard, but I don't plan to vote for either. One of his ideas is that the government doesn't create jobs, the private sector does. If you don't have opinions on that, I'm really not interested.

[Mac-7]

Are you incapable of sticking to topic and arguing a point?

What is the point of arguing with a potted plant that does not vote?

[Chris]

What is the point of arguing with a potted plant that does not vote?

Then why are you here pretending to argue?

Can the government create jobs? Any thoughts whatsoever?

[Mac-7]

Then why are you here pretending to argue?

Can the government create jobs? Any thoughts whatsoever?

Not the kind of jobs I want to see.

government can expand the EPA or some other government agency and create jobs of highly questionable value

but very little beyond that

[Docthehun]

Then why are you here pretending to argue?

Can the government create jobs? Any thoughts whatsoever?

They're easily the nation's largest employer. That's what they do with the vast majority of your tax dollars.

[Docthehun]

Not the kind of jobs I want to see.

government can expand the EPA or some other government agency and create jobs of highly questionable value

but very little beyond that

Nonsense. What about all the military industrial complex?

[Mac-7]

Nonsense. What about all the military industrial complex?

Yes there is some merit to that

it takes real knowledge and skillto design and build good military equipment.

so I would not call those bad jobs.

[Chris]

Not the kind of jobs I want to see.

government can expand the EPA or some other government agency and create jobs of highly questionable value

but very little beyond that



Good, then you agree with Johnson on that point.

I understand you disagree on other points and won't vote for him.

[Chris]

They're easily the nation's largest employer. That's what they do with the vast majority of your tax dollars.


As explained earlier when we speak of jobs we tend to mean private sector, wealth producing, not public sector, wealth consuming jobs. Of course the government can create government jobs. It could have people dig holes and then fill them back up again.

[Mac-7]

Good, then you agree with Johnson on that point.

I understand you disagree on other points and won't vote for him.

I do not agree with johnson on very much

but not even 100% agreement would be enough to waste my vote on a loser with no chance to win and see hillary win the election.

[Dr. Who]

As a moderator and the thread author, can you not make false strawman claims like the above? What do you need explained to you? That when Government hires it creates more jobs? How much simpler can I make this for you? :biglaugh:

Here is the rest you left out of my comment or chose to ignore to remove any doubt about your pompous arrogance; but does it create the kind of economic growth a society needs; well, not always in my opinion.




When you speak of Government creating jobs, how can you ignore....wait for it....the jobs GOVERNMENT actually created?



I never argued that Government meddling wasn't costly or restrictive of PRIVATE sector job growth. I've also never made an argument FOR the minimum wage. ;)
Do not bring moderation into your arguments.

[Docthehun]

As explained earlier when we speak of jobs we tend to mean private sector, wealth producing, not public sector, wealth consuming jobs. Of course the government can create government jobs. It could have people dig holes and then fill them back up again.

I would agree and I'm certain we have some Government employees "digging holes". On the other hand, we built 2,000 M1A1 tanks now gathering dust and sand out west, which the brass didn't want or need. We could sell some of them to the Egyptians....if we loan them the money. That too, I consider, "digging holes", although in the case of the latter, the holes fill themselves. I'm big on being efficient and if I was driving the bus, I'd hire a cadre of "hatchet" guys. Hatchet guys are there to weed through the ranks of management. There's little doubt in my mind, we have way too many chiefs. (Fewer chiefs, better equipped Indians)

I don't mind the amount of tax I pay, just how they spend it, but I recognize that for capitalism to really work, there has to be a heavy weight to counter balance the economy. Without that counter weight, the disparity in wealth in this country would be even wider. When it comes right down to it, real capitalists are few and far between, but they wield enormous power and in the end, would virtually own it all. Everybody would be working for the company store.


So I'd say that advocating for a smaller Government might not be such a good idea, especially, long term. Unless of course, there's a sudden shift in the number of budding capitalists. Last year we had more businesses close than open. I consider that a dangerous sign going forward. Food for thought from this senile old Republican.

Perhaps the Senator would elaborate.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/sen-chuck-grassley-trump-rid-000000600.html

[Dr. Who]

Then why are you here pretending to argue?

Can the government create jobs? Any thoughts whatsoever?
Government can essentially create jobs by encouraging investment in a variety of ways. 1) through tax incentives; 2) through attracting investment (foreign and domestic) by offering a skilled/educated labor force; 3) by offering an infrastructure that supports investment.

[Mac-7]

Government can essentially create jobs by encouraging investment in a variety of ways. 1) through tax incentives; 2) through attracting investment (foreign and domestic) by offering a skilled/educated labor force; 3) by offering an infrastructure that supports investment.

One way to attract investment is to restrict imports from countries that pay low wages to their workers and have lower worker and environmental regulstions than the US does

[Dr. Who]

One way to attract investment is to restrict imports from countries that pay low wages to their workers and have lower worker and environmental regulstions than the US does
While I don't disagree in principle with what you are saying, much of the offshore work is relatively unskilled, so if you want to attract other forms of enterprise, you have to provide the incentives that I indicated. Many manufacturers moved to Mexico because of NAFTA and have returned because Mexico lacks two factors, the skilled/educated workers and the infrastructure to support the industry.

[Mac-7]

While I don't disagree in principle with what you are saying, much of the offshore work is relatively unskilled, so if you want to attract other forms of enterprise, you have to provide the incentives that I indicated. Many manufacturers moved to Mexico because of NAFTA and have returned because Mexico lacks two factors, the skilled/educated workers and the infrastructure to support the industry.

Not all workers in America have to be highly skilled

as long as they are Americans working here instead of chinese or mexicans offshore we can make all the products we need right here

[Chris]

One way to attract investment is to restrict imports from countries that pay low wages to their workers and have lower worker and environmental regulstions than the US does

Explaun how that would work. Restricting imports forces people to spend more for domestic goods, people have less savings, can invest less.

[Truth Detector]

As explained earlier when we speak of jobs we tend to mean private sector, wealth producing, not public sector, wealth consuming jobs. Of course the government can create government jobs. It could have people dig holes and then fill them back up again.

So when the Government buys military aircraft it is not creating private sector jobs??? Fascinating.

When the Government contracts to buy thousands of uniforms, it is not creating private sector jobs? Amazing.

What is REALLY amazing is using Johnson's statements, who is an idiot, and then declare that this is NOT about Johnson making idiot statements like this but arguing that the Government cannot do what it actually does.

:rofl:

[Truth Detector]

Government can essentially create jobs by encouraging investment in a variety of ways. 1) through tax incentives; 2) through attracting investment (foreign and domestic) by offering a skilled/educated labor force; 3) by offering an infrastructure that supports investment.

In most cases, Government destroys private sector jobs when it attempts to interfere and "manage" economic outputs. The private sector jobs it creates are not as desirable as the those created outside of Government for the simple fact that in order to pay for the goods and services it creates by those jobs, it has to first extract that money FROM the private sector which is why the multiplier effect for Government spending is nearly zero or sometimes negative.

Gary Johnson expressed his views incorrectly by claiming that Government doesn't create jobs; what he meant to say is that Government does a better job creating opportunity by getting IT out of the way.

[Mac-7]

Explaun how that would work. Restricting imports forces people to spend more for domestic goods, people have less savings, can invest less.

If a product is made in china the money goes back to china and contributes to growing their economy instead of ours

[Ethereal]

If a product is made in china the money goes back to china contributes to growing their economy instead of ours

Your inability to understand how trade works is absolutely amazing.

It's such a simple concept.

They get the money and we get the product, which is mutually beneficial.

How do you not understand this?

[Truth Detector]

Your inability to understand how trade works is absolutely amazing.

It's such a simple concept.

They get the money and we get the product, which is mutually beneficial.

How do you not understand this?

It's even better when WE make the product and WE get the money don't you think? Do not mistake this as an argument for protectionism. But I think many of these arguments are simplistic.

It is interesting to see you take a globalist view yet think that we do not have to protect those trading interests abroad when tyrants, dictators and terrorists threaten them.

[Ethereal]

It's even better when WE make the product and WE get the money don't you think? Do not mistake this as an argument for protectionism. But I think many of these arguments are simplistic.

It is interesting to see you take a globalist view yet think that we do not have to protect those trading interests abroad when tyrants, dictators and terrorists threaten them.

We?

Why are you such a collectivist?

I want the cheapest, best product I can get and I don't really care where it comes from.

If you want to spend extra money on a product of equal quality just so you can buy American, then that's your business.

[Truth Detector]

We?

Why are you such a collectivist?

Would it have been better for you or changed the meaning if I had said America? Good lord, take a break from being uptight all the time. :biglaugh:


I want the cheapest, best product I can get and I don't really care where it comes from.

What if where it comes from is being threatened by a brutal dictator?


If you want to spend extra money on a product of equal quality just so you can buy American, then that's your business.

I seriously doubt that the crap that is coming out of China, India or Vietnam is equal quality. It's just cheaper because they exploit their environments and people and don't care if they are selling crap to us.

My question was, wouldn't it be better if "Americans" made the products "Americans" consume? It's not a difficult question to answer is it?

[Common]

https://i.snag.gy/f9th34.jpg


Yeah that was it lol, someone tell johnson its BUSINESS that got us where we are today

[Mac-7]

Your inability to understand how trade works is absolutely amazing.

It's such a simple concept.

They get the money and we get the product, which is mutually beneficial.

How do you not understand this?

The $300 to $500 billion a year when pay china for their merchandise is building their economy instead of ours.

they invest the money in more factories and machines to build more products.

its the same concept America followed up until the 1990s when our government lached onto the free trade scam

[Mac-7]

n
Would it have been better for you or changed the meaning if I had said America? Good lord, take a break from being uptight all the time. :biglaugh:



What if where it comes from is being threatened by a brutal dictator?



I seriously doubt that the crap that is coming out of China, India or Vietnam is equal quality. It's just cheaper because they exploit their environments and people and don't care if they are selling crap to us.

My question was, wouldn't it be better if "Americans" made the products "Americans" consume? It's not a difficult question to answer is it?


It is better but knee jerk free traders were told otherwise and they no longer think for themselves.

China takes raw material that cost a few pennies and works it into products worth 100 or 1000 times more

which they sell to us so they can grow their economy while ours remains stagnent.

[Mac-7]

Your inability to understand how trade works is absolutely amazing.

It's such a simple concept.

They get the money and we get the product, which is mutually beneficial.

How do you not understand this?

Translation:

Ethereal lives only for today and will probably be dead before the worst consequences of his selfishness fall on the backs of future Americans.

[Chris]

So when the Government buys military aircraft it is not creating private sector jobs??? Fascinating.

When the Government contracts to buy thousands of uniforms, it is not creating private sector jobs? Amazing.

What is REALLY amazing is using Johnson's statements, who is an idiot, and then declare that this is NOT about Johnson making idiot statements like this but arguing that the Government cannot do what it actually does.

:rofl:


Is that wealth producing or wealth consuming?

[Chris]

In most cases, Government destroys private sector jobs when it attempts to interfere and "manage" economic outputs. The private sector jobs it creates are not as desirable as the those created outside of Government for the simple fact that in order to pay for the goods and services it creates by those jobs, it has to first extract that money FROM the private sector which is why the multiplier effect for Government spending is nearly zero or sometimes negative.

Gary Johnson expressed his views incorrectly by claiming that Government doesn't create jobs; what he meant to say is that Government does a better job creating opportunity by getting IT out of the way.



He means, private sector, wealth generating jobs.

Somehow statists think government spending money produces wealth.

[Chris]

If a product is made in china the money goes back to china contributes to growing their economy instead of ours

And those dollars come home to roost in the purchase of treasury bills that go to invest in business. Ooops.


That doesn't explain this claim you made:


One way to attract investment is to restrict imports from countries that pay low wages to their workers and have lower worker and environmental regulstions than the US does

Could you explain that when restricting imports forces people to spend more for domestic goods, people have less savings, can invest less?

[Chris]

It's even better when WE make the product and WE get the money don't you think? Do not mistake this as an argument for protectionism. But I think many of these arguments are simplistic.

It is interesting to see you take a globalist view yet think that we do not have to protect those trading interests abroad when tyrants, dictators and terrorists threaten them.


From a mercantilist perspective, you're right. But no economist since Adam Smith has argued for mercantilism.

And, yes, mercantilism is protectionist.


Trade is and always has been global. Trade is one way in which the private sector generates wealth.

[Chris]

Yeah that was it lol, someone tell johnson its BUSINESS that got us where we are today

Business generates wealth. That's true.

[Chris]

The $300 to $500 billion a year when pay china for their merchandise is building their economy instead of ours.

they invest the money in more factories and machines to build more products.

its the same concept America followed up until the 1990s when our government lached onto the free trade scam


Again, those US$ going to China only have value if redeemed in the US. That is done by purchasing treasury bills that go to investment in US businesses.

[Mac-7]

And those dollars come home to roost in the purchase of treasury bills that go to invest in business. Ooops.




A business owned by chinese instead of Americans.

Its the same as imperialists in the 19th century that owned plantations in the 3rd world and worked the local population like slaves while sending the goods and profits back to the home country.

[Chris]

n


It is better but knee jerk free traders were told otherwise and they no longer think for themselves.

China takes raw material that cost a few pennies and works it into products worth 100 or 1000 times more

which they sell to us so they can grow their economy while ours remains stagnent.


So US businesses purchase goods at lower costs to their production process. The saving they invest in the business. This also lowers prices for US consumers. Their savings is also invested.


As a result, in fact, US manufacturing produces more and more. It's on the rise. It's not stagnant.

[Mac-7]

Again, those US$ going to China only have value if redeemed in the US.

That is done by purchasing treasury bills that go to investment in US businesses.

Not US businesses anymore

Businesses located in the US but owned by china.

[Chris]

A business owned by chinese instead of Americans.

Its the same as imperialists in the 19th century that owned plantations in the 3rd world and worked the local population like slaves while sending the goods and profits back to the home country.


The purchase of US bonds does not result in ownership of businesses. It results in ownership of our debt.

Get your facts right so you have a base of knowledge to argue from.

[Chris]

Not US businesses anymore

Businesses located in the US but owned by china.


What businesses are these? Get some facts.

[Mac-7]

What businesses are these? Get some facts.

I have a fact

china makes a $500 billon profit each year from America.

That is the US-china trade deficit.

Which is half of a typical Obumer/Hillary stimulas package for "shovel-ready" infastructure construction jobs.

but those jobs go to china building chinese roads and bridges not America.

or as you claim, they return the money to America to invest in US companies that you fail to name.

so dont get technical on me just because you are losing the argument

[Ethereal]

I have a fact

china makes a $500 billon profit each year from America.

That is the US-china trade deficit.

Which is half of a typical Obumer/Hillary stimulas package for "shovel ready" infasrptructure building jobs.

but those jobs go to china building chinese roads and bridges not America.

or as you claim they return the money to America to invest in US companies that you fail to name.

so dont get technical on me just because you are losing the argument

And we get $500 billion worth of goods and services in return.

But the simple concept of trade will continue to mystify you no matter how many times it is explained to you.

[Mac-7]

And we get $500 billion worth of goods and services in return.

But the simple concept of trade will continue to mystify you no matter how many times it is explained to you.

Yes, we get an iphone that lasts a year before it breaks or becomes obsolete.

whereas a dam in china that they build with our money produces hydroelectric power for 100 years.

only a drug zombie would make that trade

[Chris]

I have a fact

china makes a $500 billon profit each year from America.

That is the US-china trade deficit.

Which is half of a typical Obumer/Hillary stimulas package for "shovel-ready" infastructure construction jobs.

but those jobs go to china building chinese roads and bridges not America.

or as you claim, they return the money to America to invest in US companies that you fail to name.

so dont get technical on me just because you are losing the argument



Can you explain the difference between business profit and trade deficit?



I'm explaining how US Treasury Bonds work.

[Chris]

And we get $500 billion worth of goods and services in return.

But the simple concept of trade will continue to mystify you no matter how many times it is explained to you.


His $500B actually represents the trade deficit, the difference between what we export to China and what they export here. So we get $500B more from them than they do us. That could be called a net profit of $500B for us, in addition to all the billions of products and services we get. Mac has it backward.

[Mac-7]

Can you explain the difference between business profit and trade deficit?



I'm explaining how US Treasury Bonds work.

Now you are just stalling for time.

as I pointed out America transfer $500 bil of our wealth to china each year

its their money now and they are free to decide what to do with it.

[Mac-7]

His $500B actually represents the trade deficit, the difference between what we export to China and what they export here. So we get $500B more from them than they do us. That could be called a net profit of $500B for us, in addition to all the billions of products and services we get. Mac has it backward.

Actually it means china created $500 billion more weath than America did.

[Chris]

Actually it means china created $500 billion more weath than America did.

No, it does not. It simply means in aggregate people and businesses (mostly businesses) in general imported more than they exported to China. That's our gain.

[Chris]

Now you are just stalling for time.

as I pointed out America transfer $500 bil of our wealth to china each year

its their money now and they are free to decide what to do with it.



No, China sends $500B more here than we send there.

[Mac-7]

No, it does not. It simply means in aggregate people and businesses (mostly businesses) in general imported more than they exported to China. That's our gain.

its our loss as we fund china's growth while neglecting growth in this country

[Mac-7]

No, China sends $500B more here than we send there.

The money china gets from us can be used for investment in china or America.

the cheap widgets we get from china is only short term consumption.

[Chris]

its our loss as we fund china's growth while neglecting growth in this country

But they purchase US Treasury Bills to fund our growth.


Productivity in US is on rise:

https://i.snag.gy/O3Y0j8.jpg

[Chris]

The money china gets from us can be used for investment in china or America.

the cheap widgets we get from china is only short term consumption.


US$ can be traded around but eventually can only be redeemed by purchasing US good or Treasury Bonds. Here's an explanation: http://www.investopedia.com/video/play/why-does-china-buy-us-treasury-bonds/

[Chris]

its our loss as we fund china's growth while neglecting growth in this country

It funds our growth as well. That's what trade is all about. People exchange what they value less for what they value more. Both sides gain. It's win win.

[Dr. Who]

It funds our growth as well. That's what trade is all about. People exchange what they value less for what they value more. Both sides gain. It's win win.
That can also be short-sighted. The bulk of the goods that are being imported from Chinese manufacturers, were they made at that level of quality in America, would be considered sub-standard. They are inferior goods, made from inferior materials and tend to fall apart much sooner than well-made goods. If you spend $20 on a cheap pair of shoes that fall apart and you throw away after 1 year, you have spent far more than if you spend $80 dollars on a pair of shoes and keep them for 5 years. It's false economy. Not only are you spending more on repurchasing the product, you are spending time and gas shopping for the replacements. You are also contributing to filling up landfill sites which also cost you in taxes or if you happen to pay by the bag for garbage pick-up, in direct waste charges. Additionally, they look like the cheap garbage that they are.

[Chris]

That can also be short-sighted. The bulk of the goods that are being imported from Chinese manufacturers, were they made at that level of quality in America, would be considered sub-standard. They are inferior goods, made from inferior materials and tend to fall apart much sooner than well-made goods. If you spend $20 on a cheap pair of shoes that fall apart and you throw away after 1 year, you have spent far more than if you spend $80 dollars on a pair of shoes and keep them for 5 years. It's false economy. Not only are you spending more on repurchasing the product, you are spending time and gas shopping for the replacements. You are also contributing to filling up landfill sites which also cost you in taxes or if you happen to pay by the bag for garbage pick-up, in direct waste charges. Additionally, they look like the cheap garbage that they are.


The bulk of those goods are imported as inputs to US manufacturing. Some 90% or more. I posted thread on that a while ago.

My guess is the majority of those goods are good quality, what manufacturer would use them knowing the risk to their own business.

There are reports of poor quality solar panels from China. Who bought those, iirc, the government. Didn't they test the quality before spending millions? Wasn't their money. Wasn't their risk.


I buy cheap shoes at Walmart, for around $10. I wear them everywhere, including doing yardwork. They last about 2-3 years. Then I buy the exact same shoes again. Now I do spend more money, around $80 to $90 for good work jeans because of the comfortable fit unavailable in other jeans.

I purchase what I value.

I'm sure you purchase what you value.

Why should I dictate to your or you me what we each purchase?

[Ethereal]

Yes, we get an iphone that lasts a year before it breaks or becomes obsolete.

whereas a dam in china that they build with our money produces hydroelectric power for 100 years.

only a drug zombie would make that trade

And only a complete moron would think the typical smartphone breaks or becomes obsolete after just one year. My smartphone is over four years old and it still performs just fine.

Even stupider is the idea that the price of a smartphone is enough to build a hydroelectric dam. You're a few million smartphones short there, guy.

[Ethereal]

His $500B actually represents the trade deficit, the difference between what we export to China and what they export here. So we get $500B more from them than they do us. That could be called a net profit of $500B for us, in addition to all the billions of products and services we get. Mac has it backward.

Like I said, Mac is too dumb to understand a simple concept like trade.

[Ethereal]

The money china gets from us can be used for investment in china or America.

the cheap widgets we get from china is only short term consumption.

Those "widgets" are the backbone of our country's economic productivity.

Almost every business person in America relies on cheap electronics to maximize their productivity.

It is absolutely amazing how dumb and mindless your understanding of a modern, globalized economy is.

You are probably still using an abacus and writing on papyrus.

[Chris]

Like I said, Mac is too dumb to understand a simple concept like trade.

Oh, he's smart enough, just prefers partisan sound bytes. And it works, from Clump to Mac, intuitively having a $500B deficit sounds terrible!!

[Ethereal]

That can also be short-sighted. The bulk of the goods that are being imported from Chinese manufacturers, were they made at that level of quality in America, would be considered sub-standard. They are inferior goods, made from inferior materials and tend to fall apart much sooner than well-made goods. If you spend $20 on a cheap pair of shoes that fall apart and you throw away after 1 year, you have spent far more than if you spend $80 dollars on a pair of shoes and keep them for 5 years. It's false economy. Not only are you spending more on repurchasing the product, you are spending time and gas shopping for the replacements. You are also contributing to filling up landfill sites which also cost you in taxes or if you happen to pay by the bag for garbage pick-up, in direct waste charges. Additionally, they look like the cheap garbage that they are.

You are severely underestimating the quality of manufactured goods in China and other Asian countries. Almost every decent product I own was manufactured overseas: My clothes, my netbook, my smartphone, my graphing calculator, my car, etc. All of them are good products at decent prices. Why the hell would I want to deny myself access to such a wide array of affordable, useful products?

[Ethereal]

The bulk of those goods are imported as inputs to US manufacturing. Some 90% or more. I posted thread on that a while ago.

My guess is the majority of those goods are good quality, what manufacturer would use them knowing the risk to their own business.

There are reports of poor quality solar panels from China. Who bought those, iirc, the government. Didn't they test the quality before spending millions? Wasn't their money. Wasn't their risk.


I buy cheap shoes at Walmart, for around $10. I wear them everywhere, including doing yardwork. They last about 2-3 years. Then I buy the exact same shoes again. Now I do spend more money, around $80 to $90 for good work jeans because of the comfortable fit unavailable in other jeans.

I purchase what I value.

I'm sure you purchase what you value.

Why should I dictate to your or you me what we each purchase?

Exactly right.

I can decide for myself if I want to buy an expensive "quality" product made in America or Europe or if I want to buy something more affordable that comes from South America or Asia.

Because this idea that anything from China falls apart after a few months is a giant exaggeration. I've had my Chinese-made netbook (which was really affordable) for a year-and-a-half now and it works just fine. And even if it broke down tomorrow, the cost of the product depreciated over its lifespan would be about $0.35 per day. That is a fantastic value considering how much I've used this thing.

[Chris]

Exactly right.

I can decide for myself if I want to buy an expensive "quality" product made in America or Europe or if I want to buy something more affordable that comes from South America or Asia.

Because this idea that anything from China falls apart after a few months is a giant exaggeration. I've had my Chinese-made netbook (which was really affordable) for a year-and-a-half now and it works just fine. And even if it broke down tomorrow, the cost of the product amortized over its lifespan would be about $0.35 per day. That is a fantastic value considering how much I've used this thing.


The thing so many people forget is governments don't trade, the US and China do not trade, so all this talk of a trade deficit between the two is utter nonsense. People trade. They may be individuals, like the guy in China I got my porcupine sticker from, or they may be a bookshop in England where I purchased some rare Bob Dylan recordings, or they may be a corporation by Lenovo in China who made my notebook. But it's all just people.

Leave people the heck alone to make their own choices.

Don't vote for politicians like Clump who want to control people trading and exchanging.

[Ethereal]

I still have a Nike tank-top that was bought for me eighteen years ago. It was made in China. Not a single seam has gone bad. It's basically still in perfect condition after eighteen years of heavy usage - sports, casual, yard work, etc. It's one of the best articles of clothing I've ever had. Depreciated over its life, the cost of the shirt is basically nothing, maybe one cent per day, tops. That is amazing when you think about it. And people like Mac think America is made worse off by this. He would rather I pay ten times as much for the products I rely on, just so some stranger I've never met can have a subsidized wage. Unbelievable.

[Chris]

https://i.snag.gy/8f5rlg.jpg

@ http://news.pickuptrucks.com/2012/03/what-percentage-of-your-truck-is-made-in-america.html


I drive a Ford pickup so I'm 75% patriotic.

[Ethereal]

When we stop theorizing and conjecturing about trade between America and foreign countries and start looking at the reality we inhabit, it becomes immediately clear that America's economy is made so much better and stronger by international trade. Almost every product in my house was made overseas. And it's the same for every other American, Canadian, or European on this forum. And the ONLY way you can create an economic incentive for westerners to stop buying these products from overseas markets is by creating parity in labor costs between west and east, which would necessitate MASSIVE tariffs on imports. We're talking about increasing prices by somewhere around a factor of twenty! So that would mean my $200 Chromebook made in China is going to cost around $4,000 after equalizing the differences in average labor costs between America and China. That would devastate our economy. That is what Mac wants for America - skyrocketing prices.

[Dr. Who]

The bulk of those goods are imported as inputs to US manufacturing. Some 90% or more. I posted thread on that a while ago.

My guess is the majority of those goods are good quality, what manufacturer would use them knowing the risk to their own business.

There are reports of poor quality solar panels from China. Who bought those, iirc, the government. Didn't they test the quality before spending millions? Wasn't their money. Wasn't their risk.


I buy cheap shoes at Walmart, for around $10. I wear them everywhere, including doing yardwork. They last about 2-3 years. Then I buy the exact same shoes again. Now I do spend more money, around $80 to $90 for good work jeans because of the comfortable fit unavailable in other jeans.

I purchase what I value.

I'm sure you purchase what you value.

Why should I dictate to your or you me what we each purchase?

Walmart goods are not straight imports, they are often being manufactured for Walmart, so standards apply.

How about the Chinese drywall crisis or the pet food disaster (one of those inputs you were talking about), not to mention the everyday imports from China that turn out to be toxic to children or flammable? How many product recalls were directly the result of defective chinese parts or equipment that had production delays because of these defective parts?

http://wheels.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/12/19/recalls-of-chinese-auto-parts-are-a-mounting-concern/?_r=0
http://jalopnik.com/5518910/if-chinese-car-parts-are-this-bad-imagine-an-entire-chinese-car
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2011/11/09/made-in-china-u-s-military-finding-fake-chinese-electronics-in-gear-at-alarming-rate/
http://www.chicagonow.com/cta-tattler/2012/03/defective-chinese-made-parts-blamed-for-putting-new-series-5000-rail-cars-out-of-service/#image/1
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-autos-aston-china-insight-idUSBREA1A0SD20140211
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-gm-recall-china-idUSKBN0F01BF20140625
http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/defective-carbon-handlebar-component-part-from-china
http://www.thedetroitbureau.com/2009/09/nissan-recalls-models-with-bad-chinese-parts/

Then there are all the scams that are being perpetrated in the form of fake designer goods, pirated movies and the like.

There are many goods simply brought in by importers and sold in discount stores throughout America, often in strip malls in poorer communities. There you find clothing, shoes, toys and even furniture, much of which would go up in flames at the least spark. People don't even realize that these products should come with a hazard warning, so they are not actually making an informed choice.

[Dr. Who]

I still have a Nike tank-top that was bought for me eighteen years ago. It was made in China. Not a single seam has gone bad. It's basically still in perfect condition after eighteen years of heavy usage - sports, casual, yard work, etc. It's one of the best articles of clothing I've ever had. Depreciated over its life, the cost of the shirt is basically nothing, maybe one cent per day, tops. That is amazing when you think about it. And people like Mac think America is made worse off by this. He would rather I pay ten times as much for the products I rely on, just so some stranger I've never met can have a subsidized wage. Unbelievable.
There is a great difference in the quality of goods manufactured in China for outfits like Nike or even Walmart vs the goods that are simply imported via the import export industry.

[Ethereal]

Walmart goods are not straight imports, they are often being manufactured for Walmart, so standards apply.

How about the Chinese drywall crisis or the pet food disaster (one of those inputs you were talking about), not to mention the everyday imports from China that turn out to be toxic to children or flammable? How many product recalls were directly the result of defective chinese parts or equipment that had production delays because of these defective parts?

http://wheels.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/12/19/recalls-of-chinese-auto-parts-are-a-mounting-concern/?_r=0
http://jalopnik.com/5518910/if-chinese-car-parts-are-this-bad-imagine-an-entire-chinese-car
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2011/11/09/made-in-china-u-s-military-finding-fake-chinese-electronics-in-gear-at-alarming-rate/
http://www.chicagonow.com/cta-tattler/2012/03/defective-chinese-made-parts-blamed-for-putting-new-series-5000-rail-cars-out-of-service/#image/1
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-autos-aston-china-insight-idUSBREA1A0SD20140211
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-gm-recall-china-idUSKBN0F01BF20140625
http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/defective-carbon-handlebar-component-part-from-china
http://www.thedetroitbureau.com/2009/09/nissan-recalls-models-with-bad-chinese-parts/

Then there are all the scams that are being perpetrated in the form of fake designer goods, pirated movies and the like.

There are many goods simply brought in by importers and sold in discount stores throughout America, often in strip malls in poorer communities. There you find clothing, shoes, toys and even furniture, much of which would go up in flames at the least spark. People don't even realize that these products should come with a hazard warning, so they are not actually making an informed choice.

We're talking about almost $500 billion dollars worth of imports. So there are going to be some crappy products in the mix. But that is in no way representative of the entirety of our trade relationship. Nor does it justify increasing prices by a factor of ten or twenty just to make buying American seem attractive again.

[Dr. Who]

Exactly right.

I can decide for myself if I want to buy an expensive "quality" product made in America or Europe or if I want to buy something more affordable that comes from South America or Asia.

Because this idea that anything from China falls apart after a few months is a giant exaggeration. I've had my Chinese-made netbook (which was really affordable) for a year-and-a-half now and it works just fine. And even if it broke down tomorrow, the cost of the product depreciated over its lifespan would be about $0.35 per day. That is a fantastic value considering how much I've used this thing.
I hope that the battery doesn't start a fire.

[Chris]

Walmart goods are not straight imports, they are often being manufactured for Walmart, so standards apply.

How about the Chinese drywall crisis or the pet food disaster (one of those inputs you were talking about), not to mention the everyday imports from China that turn out to be toxic to children or flammable? How many product recalls were directly the result of defective chinese parts or equipment that had production delays because of these defective parts?

http://wheels.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/12/19/recalls-of-chinese-auto-parts-are-a-mounting-concern/?_r=0
http://jalopnik.com/5518910/if-chinese-car-parts-are-this-bad-imagine-an-entire-chinese-car
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2011/11/09/made-in-china-u-s-military-finding-fake-chinese-electronics-in-gear-at-alarming-rate/
http://www.chicagonow.com/cta-tattler/2012/03/defective-chinese-made-parts-blamed-for-putting-new-series-5000-rail-cars-out-of-service/#image/1
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-autos-aston-china-insight-idUSBREA1A0SD20140211
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-gm-recall-china-idUSKBN0F01BF20140625
http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/defective-carbon-handlebar-component-part-from-china
http://www.thedetroitbureau.com/2009/09/nissan-recalls-models-with-bad-chinese-parts/

Then there are all the scams that are being perpetrated in the form of fake designer goods, pirated movies and the like.

There are many goods simply brought in by importers and sold in discount stores throughout America, often in strip malls in poorer communities. There you find clothing, shoes, toys and even furniture, much of which would go up in flames at the least spark. People don't even realize that these products should come with a hazard warning, so they are not actually making an informed choice.


Indeed, we see instances of Chines good being bad, but we also see instances of US goods being bad. Somehow a border makes a difference?

[Chris]

I hope that the battery doesn't start a fire.

Scarey!!!

[Ethereal]

There is a great difference in the quality of goods manufactured in China for outfits like Nike or even Walmart vs the goods that are simply imported via the import export industry.

I have dozens of great products that were manufactured in China, as does almost every other westerner who lives a modern lifestyle.

Why in the world would I want to mess that up?

[Ethereal]

I hope that the battery doesn't start a fire.

Why all the fear-mongering? It works great. And even if it broke tomorrow, it would still be a good value - about $0.35 a day. Do you just hate China or something?

[Ethereal]

My friend bought a Lenovo laptop, which is a Chinese-based company. He's had that thing for almost five years. Never failed him. The only reason it no longer works is because he let rain get into his backpack. Or my graphing calculator. Made in China. Has worked great for years. No problems at all. I could go on and on and on. Just tell me when to stop.

[Ethereal]

Scarey!!!

Yea, I better get rid of this thing and trade it in for a $4,000 dollar American substitute because the battery MIGHT fail at some point.

[exploited]

Manufacturing simplistic consumer goods is a dead industry here, and isn't what the West should be focused on. It was great for awhile but those times are done. I don't mind choosing to pay extra to support Western workers, but I do that on my own free will, not because of tariffs. I encourage all those who have an issue with China to boycott their goods, and spend the extra money supporting local businesses.

We need to move past the idea that the West is a manufacturer. We are not. We have evolved into a knowledge economy, and if we don't embrace it, we will continue to lose relative economic standing.

[Ethereal]

Manufacturing simplistic consumer goods is a dead industry here, and isn't what the West should be focused on. It was great for awhile but those times are done. I don't mind choosing to pay extra to support Western workers, but I do that on my own free will, not because of tariffs. I encourage all those who have an issue with China to boycott their goods, and spend the extra money supporting local businesses.

We need to move past the idea that the West is a manufacturer. We are not. We have evolved into a knowledge economy, and if we don't embrace it, we will continue to lose relative economic standing.

I wonder how someone boycotting China and other cheap overseas manufacturers plan to get electronic goods from local businesses. I wasn't aware the local mom and pop store was manufacturing laptops and smart phones.

Anyway, I agree with the general thrust of your post. The future of our economy lies in knowledge. For example, creating novel software platforms. Uber and AirBNB are really good examples of how knowledge can be employed to make our economy way more efficient.

[exploited]

I wonder how someone boycotting China and other cheap overseas manufacturers plan to get electronic goods from local businesses. I wasn't aware the local mom and pop store was manufacturing laptops and smart phones.

Anyway, I agree with the general thrust of your post. The future of our economy lies in knowledge. For example, creating novel software platforms. Uber and AirBNB are really good examples of how knowledge can be employed to make our economy way more efficient.

I was actually referring to stuff like shoes, clothing, etc. That is what I meant by simplistic consumer goods. There is still some room for high-tech manufacturing in the West, especially as we transition into utilizing 3D printers and the like. However I expect that we will innovate those techniques here, and then they will quickly be sent offshore.

[Ethereal]

I was actually referring to stuff like shoes, clothing, etc. That is what I meant by simplistic consumer goods. There is still some room for high-tech manufacturing in the West, especially as we transition into utilizing 3D printers and the like. However I expect that we will innovate those techniques here, and then they will quickly be sent offshore.

Agreed.

[Chris]

Manufacturing has been in decline in importance to economies for a long time:

https://i.snag.gy/VnOoUH.jpg

Clump will not change that. It's popular to think Clump can fix things and save us.

[Dr. Who]

Why all the fear-mongering? It works great. And even if it broke tomorrow, it would still be a good value - about $0.35 a day. Do you just hate China or something?
My issue with China is their lack of manufacturing standards and oversight. One company may impose standards and another may not. As a result, there have been far too many deaths and injuries attributable to Chinese imports. Perhaps I am more acutely aware of these problems because they have turned into very expensive class actions which in turn have resulted in considerable insurance and reinsurance payouts and continue to do so. Working for one of the largest reinsurers in the world, these claims land on my desk and I get to read about the downside of all these cheap goods and it makes me wary of them, for good reason. Because of the melamine additives in the dog food meal purchased by almost every single dog food producer in America, thousands of dogs died a pretty painful death. I had several of those claims as well, against a variety of pet food manufacturers. Since then, I only feed my dog raw meat. I don't trust the manufacturers of pet foods not to contract with a Chinese supplier.

[Ethereal]

My issue with China is their lack of manufacturing standards and oversight. One company may impose standards and another may not. As a result, there have been far too many deaths and injuries attributable to Chinese imports. Perhaps I am more acutely aware of these problems because they have turned into very expensive class actions which in turn have resulted in considerable insurance and reinsurance payouts and continue to do so. Working for one of the largest reinsurers in the world, these claims land on my desk and I get to read about the downside of all these cheap goods and it makes me wary of them, for good reason. Because of the melamine additives in the dog food meal purchased by almost every single dog food producer in America, thousands of dogs died a pretty painful death. I had several of those claims as well, against a variety of pet food manufacturers. Since then, I only feed my dog raw meat. I don't trust the manufacturers of pet foods not to contract with a Chinese supplier.

Fair enough. And certainly consumers could and should be more aware of the products they're buying. But on net, our trade relationship with China has been a giant gain for both parties. We can't throw the baby out with the bathwater because a portion of the products coming out of China are crap. Some of the products made in America are crap, too, even in spite of government oversight and regulation. Just look at our prescription drugs or some of our food products. How often do you see a new lawsuit against a pharmaceutical company or a warning about an E coli breakout in lettuce or something. But when you're dealing with such massive amounts of products, these kinds of things are inevitable. $500 billion worth of imports, some of the products are going to be bad.

[Ethereal]

One thing I find mind boggling is Trump's ability to make something so amazing as international free trade seem like a really bad thing.

We're talking about trillions of dollars worth of value being added to our economy and Trump is out there convincing millions of Americans that they're getting screwed by having access to a vast array of affordable, useful products.

Adam Smith must be rolling in his grave right now.

[Dr. Who]

Fair enough. And certainly consumers could and should be more aware of the products they're buying. But on net, our trade relationship with China has been a giant gain for both parties. We can't throw the baby out with the bathwater because a portion of the products coming out of China are crap. Some of the products made in America are crap, too, even in spite of government oversight and regulation. Just look at our prescription drugs or some of our food products. How often do you see a new lawsuit against a pharmaceutical company or a warning about an E coli breakout in lettuce or something. But when you're dealing with such massive amounts of products, these kinds of things are inevitable. $500 billion worth of imports, some of the products are going to be bad.
I know you don't get 100% perfect goods anywhere, but at least in the west there are regulations and inspections. It's still very much a free for all in China - not officially, but realistically. I will buy Chinese goods where the manufacturer has a long-standing reputation for quality. I am not trusting in the subcontracter who is actually making the goods, I am trusting in the name on the product, be it Nike or Apple or what have you, to ensure that the product that they sell is free from defects, because it's their reputation on the line. I still won't extend this trust to inexpensive items like dog-food or canned fish etc, nor will I generally purchase much in the way of cheap imports, because frankly they look and smell cheap. They often have a chemical odor because they are so full of petroleum derived materials.

[nic34]

My issue with China is their lack of manufacturing standards and oversight. One company may impose standards and another may not. As a result, there have been far too many deaths and injuries attributable to Chinese imports. Perhaps I am more acutely aware of these problems because they have turned into very expensive class actions which in turn have resulted in considerable insurance and reinsurance payouts and continue to do so. Working for one of the largest reinsurers in the world, these claims land on my desk and I get to read about the downside of all these cheap goods and it makes me wary of them, for good reason. Because of the melamine additives in the dog food meal purchased by almost every single dog food producer in America, thousands of dogs died a pretty painful death. I had several of those claims as well, against a variety of pet food manufacturers. Since then, I only feed my dog raw meat. I don't trust the manufacturers of pet foods not to contract with a Chinese supplier.

My issue is with commodities for 2nd and 3rd party users. Like their awful steel.

The Mystery of the Brand-New Bay Bridge’s Corroded Steel

http://www.wired.com/2015/06/mystery-brand-new-bay-bridges-corroded-steel/

[Mac-7]

Those "widgets" are the backbone of our country's economic productivity.

Almost every business person in America relies on cheap electronics to maximize their productivity.

It is absolutely amazing how dumb and mindless your understanding of a modern, globalized economy is.

You are probably still using an abacus and writing on papyrus.

I know exactly what the global economy is

its a wealth transfer from the American middle class to poor workers all over the world.

Most people who are laid off when the factory closes never find a job as good as the one they lost

[Chris]

My issue is with commodities for 2nd and 3rd party users. Like their awful steel.

The Mystery of the Brand-New Bay Bridge’s Corroded Steel

http://www.wired.com/2015/06/mystery-brand-new-bay-bridges-corroded-steel/


Interesting. As I pointed out earlier the poor quality solar panels caught the government off guard who purchased them but failed to set standards or inspect them. And now you report the government purchasing poor quality steel without setting or testing standards. I think the Chinese have figured out the incompetencies of our government.

Would you spend millions even more on products you did not test the quality of?

[Mac-7]

Oh, he's smart enough, just prefers partisan sound bytes. And it works, from Clump to Mac, intuitively having a $500B deficit sounds terrible!!

Protectionism as it is commonly called puts me out of step with the republican establishment

So whatever I am its not partisan

[Chris]

I know exactly what the global economy is

its a wealth transfer from the American middle class to poor workers all over the world.

Most people who are laid off when the factory closes never find a job as good as the one they lost


It tends to be liberals who view wealth as a pie from which you slice pieces and distribute. That's the view presented by you, Mac, when you speak only of what China gains without lookingat what the US gains, despite pages of information and explanation of that.



Most people who are laid off when the factory closes never find a job as good as the one they lost

Data?

[Mac-7]

One thing I find mind boggling is Trump's ability to make something so amazing as international free trade seem like a really bad thing.

We're talking about trillions of dollars worth of value being added to our economy and Trump is out there convincing millions of Americans that they're getting screwed by having access to a vast array of affordable, useful products.

Adam Smith must be rolling in his grave right now.

Trump did not invent the issue as you suggest.

he sees what millions of Americans see and chose not to look the other way

and as a very rich person he could afford to go along with the globalization scam since it would not hurt him directly at all.

[Chris]

Protectionism as it is commonly called puts me out of step with the republican establishment

So whatever I am its not partisan

It puts you in lockstep with Trump who is running left of Clinton. Your wealth as pie arguments are also liberal.

[Chris]

Trump did not invent the issue as you suggest.

he sees what millions of Americans see and chose not to look the other way

and as a very rich person he could afford to go along with the globalization scam since it would not hurt him directly at all.


"One thing I find mind boggling is Trump's ability to make something so amazing as international free trade seem like a really bad thing."

"Trump did not invent the issue as you suggest."

No, he made trade seem bad like you, Who, nic, etc do.



Trade has always been global.

[Mac-7]

It tends to be liberals who view wealth as a pie from which you slice pieces and distribute. That's the view presented by you, Mac, when you speak only of what China gains without lookingat what the US gains, despite pages of information and explanation of that.



The US gains nothing of lasting value.

All we get are cheap consumer goods imported from china that cost millions of American workers high paying jobs.

now many of those former workers are on fake disability or welfare and they are working for a fraction of what they made before if they work at all.

[Mac-7]

"One thing I find mind boggling is Trump's ability to make something so amazing as international free trade seem like a really bad thing."

"Trump did not invent the issue as you suggest."

No, he made trade seem bad like you, Who, nic, etc do.



Trade has always been global.

Global trade is ok.

but we are getting fleeced by china to the tune of $500 billion a year.

We should have balanced trade where they buy from us also.

[Chris]

The US gains nothing of lasting value.

All we get are cheap consumer goods imported from china that cost millions of American workers high paying jobs.

now many of those former workers are on fake disability or welfare and they are working for a fraction of what they made before if they work at all.


But people purchase those goods because they value them. People exchange what they value less for what they value more. People therefore in every trade gain something. To say there is nothing gained is just plain false.


Yes, more people are out of work these days. A key to understanding that is explaining how that can be when productivity is up. Work it out. Get back to us.

[Mac-7]

It puts you in lockstep with Trump who is running left of Clinton. Your wealth as pie arguments are also liberal.

No, it puts trump in step with me

because I have been making this argument years before trump ran for president

[Chris]

Global trade is ok.

but we are getting fleeced by china to the tune of $500 billion a year.

We should have balanced trade where they buy from us also.


The $500B comes to us. It's our gain That's been explained already.

[Mac-7]

But people purchase those goods because they value them. People exchange what they value less for what they value more. People therefore in every trade gain something. To say there is nothing gained is just plain false.


Yes, more people are out of work these days.

A key to understanding that is explaining how that can be when productivity is up. Work it out. Get back to us.

You say that as if it was no big deal

which it may not be for people conditioned to depend on government for handouts instead of working to provide for themselves

[Mac-7]

The $500B comes to us. It's our gain That's been explained already.

you explained nothing except a bullshit theory.

that money can circulate all over the globe for years without ever returning to the US.

but if it does come back it will belong to a chinese imperialist overseeing his plantation in America

[Chris]

you explained nothing except a bullshit theory.

that money can circulate all over the globe for years without ever returning to the US.

but if it does come back it will belong to a chinese imperialist overseeing his plantation in America


Mac, stop and think. A $500B deficit means $500B more goods came here as inputs to manufacturing or consumer products while $500B of inflated US paper went to China, which can be traded, used to purchase US goods, or buy US Treasury Bonds, that is buy not US businesses but US debt borrowed to invest in US business.

None of that is theory. It's all fact.

[Chris]

You say that as if it was no big deal

which it may not be for people conditioned to depend on government for handouts instead of working to provide for themselves


No, I say it as a matter of fact.

[Ethereal]

Mac, stop and think.

Aren't you setting the bar a little high?

[Chris]

Aren't you setting the bar a little high?

https://s18.postimg.org/yc0l21wd5/Untitled.png

[nic34]

Interesting. As I pointed out earlier the poor quality solar panels caught the government off guard who purchased them but failed to set standards or inspect them. And now you report the government purchasing poor quality steel without setting or testing standards. I think the Chinese have figured out the incompetencies of our government.

Would you spend millions even more on products you did not test the quality of?


Basically, California relied on "experts" to get cheap and fast.


California discovers hidden price tag of outsourcing Bay Bridge to China


The California Department of Transportation's decision to save money by hiring a Chinese company that had never built a bridge

The whole thing is really worth a read, but the bottom line is this: Caltrans started out by hiring an inexperienced company labeled as "high risk" and given only a contingent pass by an expert to build parts of a major bridge in an earthquake-prone location. Then, when problems were found by Caltrans' own engineers, its managers said they weren't really problems and threw more money at the project, leading to cost and time overruns after having hired ZPMC because it would supposedly be cheap and fast. Caltrans is insisting that the bridge is safe despite what Piller describes as a "litany of problems" including "suspect foundation concrete, broken anchor rods and rust on the suspension span’s main cable." The problem is, it's not clear Bay Area commuters should believe that.


http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/6/10/1305808/-California-discovers-hidden-price-tag-of-outsourcing-Bay-Bridge-to-China


Whenever I visit, I always travel very fast, and don't slow to take pictures....

[Chris]

Basically, California relied on "experts" to get cheap and fast.


California discovers hidden price tag of outsourcing Bay Bridge to China


The California Department of Transportation's decision to save money by hiring a Chinese company that had never built a bridge

The whole thing is really worth a read, but the bottom line is this: Caltrans started out by hiring an inexperienced company labeled as "high risk" and given only a contingent pass by an expert to build parts of a major bridge in an earthquake-prone location. Then, when problems were found by Caltrans' own engineers, its managers said they weren't really problems and threw more money at the project, leading to cost and time overruns after having hired ZPMC because it would supposedly be cheap and fast. Caltrans is insisting that the bridge is safe despite what Piller describes as a "litany of problems" including "suspect foundation concrete, broken anchor rods and rust on the suspension span’s main cable." The problem is, it's not clear Bay Area commuters should believe that.


http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/6/10/1305808/-California-discovers-hidden-price-tag-of-outsourcing-Bay-Bridge-to-China


Whenever I visit, I always travel very fast, and don't slow to take pictures....



Government experts?

[Mac-7]

Mac, stop and think. A $500B deficit means $500B more goods came here as inputs to manufacturing or consumer products while $500B of inflated US paper went to China, which can be traded, used to purchase US goods, or buy US Treasury Bonds, that is buy not US businesses but US debt borrowed to invest in US business.

None of that is theory. It's all fact.

The surplus that china earns from us makes them stronger and America weaker.

all you are doing is living off of accumulated fat stored by previous generstions of Americans

If you produce nothing you are worth nothing

and neither is a nation

[Chris]

The surplus that china earns from us makes them stronger and America weaker.

all you are doing is living off of accumulated fat stored by previous generstions of Americans

If you produce nothing you are worth nothing

and neither is a nation

Wealth is not a pie, iow, it's not a zero sum game.

The fat were living off is government created debt.

[Mac-7]

Wealth is not a pie, iow, it's not a zero sum game.

.

No one said it is.

except you when accusing others of saying it.

but wealth based on shuffling money from one drawer to another and slicing a cut off the top is not real wealth.

Take away manufacturing and America is a house of cards based on services.

Without manufacturing what do we have to offer the world?

How do we pay for the consumer goods we depend on but no longer make ourselves?

hollywood movies?

your good looks?

my personality?



We are not going to settle this argument.

so I'll give you the last word in your next post.

If I dont reply dont think it means you have defeated me or changed my mind

It just gets boring repeating ourselves again and again

[Chris]

No one said it is.

except you when accusing others of saying it.

but wealth based on shuffling money from one drawer to another and slicing a cut off the top is not real wealth.

Take away manufacturing and America is a house of cards based on services.

Without manufacturing what do we have to offer the world?

How do we pay for the consumer goods we depend on but no longer make ourselves?

hollywood movies?

your good looks?

my personality?



We are not going to settle this argument.

so I'll give you the last word in your next post.

If I dont reply dont think it means you have defeated me or changed my mind

It just gets boring repeating ourselves again and again



The following statement of yours certainly does imply a view of wealth as a pie, as a zero sum game:


he surplus that china earns from us makes them stronger and America weaker.

"In game theory and economic theory, a zero-sum game is a mathematical representation of a situation in which each participant's gain (or loss) of utility is exactly balanced by the losses (or gains) of the utility of the other participant(s). If the total gains of the participants are added up and the total losses are subtracted, they will sum to zero. Thus cutting a cake, where taking a larger piece reduces the amount of cake available for others, is a zero-sum game if all participants value each unit of cake equally (see marginal utility)." @ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-sum_game


Your assertion says China + US = 0, or, iow, China = - US.

[Mac-7]

,
The following statement of yours certainly does imply a view of wealth as a pie, as a zero sum game:



"In game theory and economic theory, a zero-sum game is a mathematical representation of a situation in which each participant's gain (or loss) of utility is exactly balanced by the losses (or gains) of the utility of the other participant(s). If the total gains of the participants are added up and the total losses are subtracted, they will sum to zero. Thus cutting a cake, where taking a larger piece reduces the amount of cake available for others, is a zero-sum game if all participants value each unit of cake equally (see marginal utility)." @ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-sum_game


Your assertion says China + US = 0, or, iow, China = - US.

I said I wont reply but here is my lastest, final parting shot

or rather the words of that old liberal pirate warren buffet

because libs are not impressed with what I say but have to be told something by experts.

which when it comes to money and wealth buffet certainly is

http://archive.fortune.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2003/11/10/352872/index.htm

But as head of Berkshire Hathaway, I am in charge of investing its money in ways that make sense. And my reason for finally putting my money where my mouth has been so long is that our trade deficit has greatly worsened, to the point that our country's "net worth," so to speak, is now being transferred abroad at an alarming rate.
A perpetuation of this transfer will lead to major trouble. To understand why, take a wildly fanciful trip with me to two isolated, side-by-side islands of equal size, Squanderville and Thriftville. Land is the only capital asset on these islands, and their communities are primitive, needing only food and producing only food. Working eight hours a day, in fact, each inhabitant can produce enough food to sustain himself or herself. And for a long time that's how things go along. On each island everybody works the prescribed eight hours a day, which means that each society is self-sufficient.

[Peter1469]

Manufacturing output is up in the US.

Employment in manufacturing is down. Automation.

[Truth Detector]

Mac, stop and think.


Aren't you setting the bar a little high?


https://s18.postimg.org/yc0l21wd5/Untitled.png

Yep; not trolling and baiting here. :rollseyes:

[Chris]

,

I said I wont reply but here is my lastest, final parting shot

or rather the words of that old liberal pirate warren buffet

because libs are not impressed with what I say but have to be told something by experts.

which when it comes to money and wealth buffet certainly is

http://archive.fortune.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2003/11/10/352872/index.htm

But as head of Berkshire Hathaway, I am in charge of investing its money in ways that make sense. And my reason for finally putting my money where my mouth has been so long is that our trade deficit has greatly worsened, to the point that our country's "net worth," so to speak, is now being transferred abroad at an alarming rate.
A perpetuation of this transfer will lead to major trouble. To understand why, take a wildly fanciful trip with me to two isolated, side-by-side islands of equal size, Squanderville and Thriftville. Land is the only capital asset on these islands, and their communities are primitive, needing only food and producing only food. Working eight hours a day, in fact, each inhabitant can produce enough food to sustain himself or herself. And for a long time that's how things go along. On each island everybody works the prescribed eight hours a day, which means that each society is self-sufficient.


This has been explained as well: He is talking about the flow of money: "At a point, so it was claimed, the spree of the consumption-happy nation would be braked by currency-rate adjustments and by the unwillingness of creditor countries to accept an endless flow of IOUs from the big spenders."

In order to fund our ever increasing debt, the US Treasury creates bonds out of thin air, IOUs. The Chinese sitting there with US$ returns them to us by purchasing IOUs. They are purchasing our debt.

I already posted this but report so do try and read it: http://www.investopedia.com/video/play/why-does-china-buy-us-treasury-bonds/

[Chris]

Manufacturing output is up in the US.

Employment in manufacturing is down. Automation.


I think that is one of the major causes. Automation allows the US to produce more with fewer people. Other factors include still recovering from the Great Recession, uncertainty driven by government overregulation and taxation, and others.

As we've discussed before there are reasons, mainly self-defense reasons, for avoiding overdependence on imports of goods that serve as inputs to manufacturing.

But the focus on deficit is really no more that political pandering to xenophobic fears.

[Chris]

Yep; not trolling and baiting here. :rollseyes:

Are you criticizing moderation? Be clear.

[Truth Detector]

Are you criticizing moderation? Be clear.

Am I? Why don't you stomp some more? :rofl:

[Truth Detector]

Are you criticizing moderation? Be clear.

Because you're a dishonest thread troll; what I am doing is pointing out a hypocrite. Can you comprehend that much? Or do you need some more examples? :laugh:

[nic34]

Government experts?

That IS a problem.

Who do you trust? Their experts or the China ones looking solely for profit?

[Mac-7]

This has been explained as well: He is talking about the flow of money: "At a point, so it was claimed, the spree of the consumption-happy nation would be braked by currency-rate adjustments and by the unwillingness of creditor countries to accept an endless flow of IOUs from the big spenders."

In order to fund our ever increasing debt, the US Treasury creates bonds out of thin air, IOUs. The Chinese sitting there with US$ returns them to us by purchasing IOUs. They are purchasing our debt.

I already posted this but report so do try and read it: http://www.investopedia.com/video/play/why-does-china-buy-us-treasury-bonds/

I said I would give you the last word and that was it for me

[Mac-7]

Are you criticizing moderation? Be clear.

Chris takes off his moderator hat when he wants to get down and dirty then puts it back on when he feels a little heat.

i think hes wearing it now

[Chris]

I said I would give you the last word and that was it for me

You just posted again.

[Chris]

That IS a problem.

Who do you trust? Their experts or the China ones looking solely for profit?

As I understood the government hired Chinese experts.

If you were buying a car from Joe would you hire Joe's buddy as expert? I would hire an independent inspector.

[Dr. Who]

Mac, stop and think. A $500B deficit means $500B more goods came here as inputs to manufacturing or consumer products while $500B of inflated US paper went to China, which can be traded, used to purchase US goods, or buy US Treasury Bonds, that is buy not US businesses but US debt borrowed to invest in US business.

None of that is theory. It's all fact.
However, as you say, trade is not between governments, but between individuals, so actually many of those US dollars are coming back to purchase real estate (https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/may/16/chinese-pour-110bn-into-us-real-estate-says-study), businesses (http://www.cnbc.com/2016/05/09/chinese-firms-go-on-a-buying-spree-for-american-companies.html) and even mines (https://ppjg.me/2010/12/07/chinese-government-money-is-buying-one-of-u-s-a-%E2%80%99s-biggest-mines/).

[Chris]

However, as you say, trade is not between governments, but between individuals, so actually many of those US dollars are coming back to purchase real estate (https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/may/16/chinese-pour-110bn-into-us-real-estate-says-study), businesses (http://www.cnbc.com/2016/05/09/chinese-firms-go-on-a-buying-spree-for-american-companies.html) and even mines (https://ppjg.me/2010/12/07/chinese-government-money-is-buying-one-of-u-s-a-%E2%80%99s-biggest-mines/).

Right, those US$s can only be used to purchase US goods or invest by purchasing Treasury bonds (debt) .

[Dr. Who]

Right, those US$s can only be used to purchase US goods or invest by purchasing Treasury bonds (debt) .
Yes, but I believe that many people have issues with the Chinese buying up US assets.

[Chris]

Yes, but I believe that many people have issues with the Chinese buying up US assets.

Mexicans are buying up property in and around San Antonio. It injects millions perhaps billions into the US economy.

[Dr. Who]

Mexicans are buying up property in and around San Antonio. It injects millions perhaps billions into the US economy.
It might do that, but considering the buying power of China, either directly or through its citizens, there comes a point where a foreign government can have too much political influence, particularly where control of major American assets are concerned. Large purchases, such as mines and businesses are being financed by the Chinese government through its captive bank. Real estate is more a case of the Hong Kong wealthy hiding their money from the Chinese government.

[Chris]

It might do that, but considering the buying power of China, either directly or through its citizens, there comes a point where a foreign government can have too much political influence, particularly where control of major American assets are concerned. Large purchases, such as mines and businesses are being financed by the Chinese government through its captive bank. Real estate is more a case of the Hong Kong wealthy hiding their money from the Chinese government.

Back up a minute. I did a little research. It's not the Chinese government buying up real estate etc but the Chineae people and corporations.

[Dr. Who]

Back up a minute. I did a little research. It's not the Chinese government buying up real estate etc but the Chineae people and corporations.I already said that the real estate is being bought by the Hong Kong wealthy hiding their money from the Chinese government. I also said that those large business and mining purchases are being financed by the Chinese government through its wholly owned bank. Chinese corporations don't necessarily have an arm's length relationship with the Chinese government. http://www.economist.com/node/21528264
http://personal.lse.ac.uk/estrin/Publication%20PDF's/Retained%20state%20shareholding%20in%20Chinese%20P LCs.pdf
http://www7.tau.ac.il/ojs/index.php/til/article/download/168/145

[Chris]

I already said that the real estate is being bought by the Hong Kong wealthy hiding their money from the Chinese government. I also said that those large business and mining purchases are being financed by the Chinese government through its wholly owned bank. Chinese corporations don't necessarily have an arm's length relationship with the Chinese government. http://www.economist.com/node/21528264
http://personal.lse.ac.uk/estrin/Publication%20PDF's/Retained%20state%20shareholding%20in%20Chinese%20P LCs.pdf
http://www7.tau.ac.il/ojs/index.php/til/article/download/168/145

Bit, no matter China's statist policies, it is the Chinese doing the buying.


If I put my house up for sale and Eth buys its, who are you to interfere? Even were Eth Chinese?

[Mac-7]

As I understood the government hired Chinese experts.

If you were buying a car from Joe would you hire Joe's buddy as expert? I would hire an independent inspector.

Maybe the liberal politicians in california got a kickback from the chinese.

[Chris]

Maybe the liberal politicians in california got a kickback from the chinese.

May well be as most corruption involves government and business.

[Mac-7]

May well be as most corruption involves government and business.

Or libs in california may really be as stupid as they appear to be on the surface

[Dr. Who]

Bit, no matter China's statist policies, it is the Chinese doing the buying.


If I put my house up for sale and Eth buys its, who are you to interfere? Even were Eth Chinese?
Even if Eth were fronting for the Chinese government? Some would ask, how much of America do you think it's OK for the Chinese government to own directly or indirectly?

[Chris]

Even if Eth were fronting for the Chinese government? Some would ask, how much of America do you think it's OK for the Chinese government to own directly or indirectly?

If he wants to work for the government, it's his business.

Your objection seems to hinge on government involvement. What if I worked for the US government and bought real estate from Chinaman Eth? Would you object?

[Mac-7]

Even if Eth were fronting for the Chinese government? Some would ask, how much of America do you think it's OK for the Chinese government to own directly or indirectly?

Suppose no one has to put a gun to the head of powerful chinese citizens to practice good old fashioned nationalism?

as hard as it is for jaded liberals and libertians to understand patriotism may not be as dead in china as it is in modern western liberal culture.

If the chinese come to own large or important swaths of America they may act in the best national interests of china instead of America.

[Ethereal]

That IS a problem.

Who do you trust? Their experts or the China ones looking solely for profit?

I don't trust either of them.

I just try to make the best decision based on the available information.

[Chris]

Suppose no one has to put a gun to the head of powerful chinese citizens to practice good old fashioned nationalism?

as hard as it is for jaded liberals and libertians to understand patriotism may not be as dead in china as it is in modern western liberal culture.

If the chinese come to own large or important swaths of America they may act in the best national interests of china instead of America.

Again nations don't trade, people do. Patriotism has no part to play. ..other than to nationalist statists.

[Mac-7]

Again nations don't trade, people do. Patriotism has no part to play. ..other than to nationalist statists.

So you assume all the chinese are as unpatriotic as liberals and libertarians in this country?

dont bet the rent money on that

[Chris]

So you assume all the chinese are as unpatriotic as liberals and libertarians in this country?

dont bet the rent money on that

I make no assumptions.

Why do you want to control what others and I exchange?

What gives you the right?

[Dr. Who]

If he wants to work for the government, it's his business.

Your objection seems to hinge on government involvement. What if I worked for the US government and bought real estate from Chinaman Eth? Would you object?
It's not so much working for the government, which would imply simply being an employee, but if the purchase through Eth was really putting that asset in Chinese government hands, it's really a different question. Since I am not concerned in the least about American political control in China, the answer to your question would be no.

In general, what I am referring to is essentially strawman purchases of US commercial real estate or other assets. So again I ask, is there a point where foreign government (i.e. China) ownership and/or control of important American assets gives it undue political influence?

[Dr. Who]

Suppose no one has to put a gun to the head of powerful chinese citizens to practice good old fashioned nationalism?

as hard as it is for jaded liberals and libertians to understand patriotism may not be as dead in china as it is in modern western liberal culture.

If the chinese come to own large or important swaths of America they may act in the best national interests of china instead of America.
While there are many Chinese nationals moving their assets (money) into US real estate both to hide it from the reach of the Chinese government and to avoid the problem of the unpredicability of the Chinese Yuan, they are doing so for purely financial reasons.

However, there are Chinese corporations that are wholly owned, semi-owned and privately owned that are purchasing US assets. The first two are little more than fronts for the Chinese government and the latter corporations are highly controlled by the Chinese government. It is these corporate purchases that are concerning, given the ability of corporate interests to influence the government through the lobbying process and through election financing. If we were talking about Iceland doing this, I would be unconcerned, however, we are talking about China - a previously isolated but huge political entity that has finally come out of its cave. The new form of imperialism on the planet is economic. By owning enough of the critical assets of any country, you start having an influence on the politics and politicians of that country. What is China's ultimate agenda? Do we know? Should we be wary?

[Chris]

It's not so much working for the government, which would imply simply being an employee, but if the purchase through Eth was really putting that asset in Chinese government hands, it's really a different question. Since I am not concerned in the least about American political control in China, the answer to your question would be no.

In general, what I am referring to is essentially strawman purchases of US commercial real estate or other assets. So again I ask, is there a point where foreign government (i.e. China) ownership and/or control of important American assets gives it undue political influence?

So basically on suspicions you would implement protectionist policies to prevent US citizens selling real estate to foreigners?

That would do the US economy wonders.

[Dr. Who]

So basically on suspicions you would implement protectionist policies to prevent US citizens selling real estate to foreigners?

That would do the US economy wonders.
That wasn't really what I was saying. I was asking whether there is a point where too many assets being controlled by a single foreign entity could be a problem. Those assets needn't be real estate, which is probably the least concerning asset ownership, but more the ownership of resource-based assets, manufacturing and other corporate interests.

[Chris]

That wasn't really what I was saying. I was asking whether there is a point where too many assets being controlled by a single foreign entity could be a problem. Those assets needn't be real estate, which is probably the least concerning asset ownership, but more the ownership of resource-based assets, manufacturing and other corporate interests.

Ok, but why would that possible a risk?

Say foreigners own a lot of our real estate. What can they do? It's not in their interests to do nothing, only to rent or resell. But that is what Americans do with it.

[Dr. Who]

Ok, but why would that possible a risk?

Say foreigners own a lot of our real estate. What can they do? It's not in their interests to do nothing, only to rent or resell. But that is what Americans do with it.
Although I indicated that real estate is the least problematic issue, the sudden influx of Chinese money into the real estate market is driving up real estate prices. You might think that's not a bad thing, however a lot of that money is funding the condo market and those condo units are often sitting empty. So a building that might have been providing accommodations to hundreds of people, owners or tenants, is now a significant waste of real estate and contributing to the lack of accommodations in cities like NYC. This is not a Chinese conspiracy however, it is just the chosen vehicle for private investment by primarily Hong Kong money. Nevertheless it is producing repercussions. Not a huge concern, but undoubtedly they will be forced by municipalities to rent out these units or pay fines.

It's the Chinese state-bank financed commercial acquisitions in general that pose a real concern in terms of political and economic influence and even security concerns. They particularly like to buy things like resource based assets, however recently they have been showing inordinate interest in other commercial endeavors:

"The surge in Chinese investments in U.S. hotel companies is starting to raise a question rarely heard in the world of commercial real estate: When does the ownership of a luxury hotel become a matter of national security?


Normally it's not, which may be one reason that so much Chinese capital has been flooding into the U.S. real estate market, especially in California. Chinese bids for U.S. manufacturing, financial and technology companies have been on the rise, spurring more government national security reviews. Until recently, real estate deals haven't raised the same political or security concerns. But that may be changing.


Although the U.S. has been the No. 1 target of Chinese investment capital in recent years, Chinese investment in the U.S. still pales in relation with that from other sources. China ranked only 14th in 2013, well behind such traditional leaders as Britain, Japan and Canada. Yet in recent years, Chinese deals have led the list of those scrutinized by the little-known Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, or CFIUS, an interagency panel headed by the Treasury Department that screens foreign acquisitions of U.S. businesses for national security implications."
http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-hiltzik-20160317-column.html

[Chris]

Although I indicated that real estate is the least problematic issue, the sudden influx of Chinese money into the real estate market is driving up real estate prices. You might think that's not a bad thing, however a lot of that money is funding the condo market and those condo units are often sitting empty. So a building that might have been providing accommodations to hundreds of people, owners or tenants, is now a significant waste of real estate and contributing to the lack of accommodations in cities like NYC. This is not a Chinese conspiracy however, it is just the chosen vehicle for private investment by primarily Hong Kong money. Nevertheless it is producing repercussions. Not a huge concern, but undoubtedly they will be forced by municipalities to rent out these units or pay fines.

It's the Chinese state-bank financed commercial acquisitions in general that pose a real concern in terms of political and economic influence and even security concerns. They particularly like to buy things like resource based assets, however recently they have been showing inordinate interest in other commercial endeavors:

"The surge in Chinese investments in U.S. hotel companies is starting to raise a question rarely heard in the world of commercial real estate: When does the ownership of a luxury hotel become a matter of national security?


Normally it's not, which may be one reason that so much Chinese capital has been flooding into the U.S. real estate market, especially in California. Chinese bids for U.S. manufacturing, financial and technology companies have been on the rise, spurring more government national security reviews. Until recently, real estate deals haven't raised the same political or security concerns. But that may be changing.


Although the U.S. has been the No. 1 target of Chinese investment capital in recent years, Chinese investment in the U.S. still pales in relation with that from other sources. China ranked only 14th in 2013, well behind such traditional leaders as Britain, Japan and Canada. Yet in recent years, Chinese deals have led the list of those scrutinized by the little-known Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, or CFIUS, an interagency panel headed by the Treasury Department that screens foreign acquisitions of U.S. businesses for national security implications."
http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-hiltzik-20160317-column.html


They're not buying is with Chinese money but US$.

Yes, a higher demand for real estate will drive up prices. Just like the government-induced housing bubble did.

It makes no sense for the Chinese to invest in condos that sit idle. It wouldn't serve their self interest.

If I look around these parts I see apartments and condos going up all over the place and immediately occupied.

If apartment and condo prices are rising then so to is the value of my house.

Again, it is not Chinese capital but US$ returning to roost and all to our benefit.

More apartments and condos means more jobs constructing them.

[Dr. Who]

They're not buying is with Chinese money but US$.

Yes, a higher demand for real estate will drive up prices. Just like the government-induced housing bubble did.

It makes no sense for the Chinese to invest in condos that sit idle. It wouldn't serve their self interest.

If I look around these parts I see apartments and condos going up all over the place and immediately occupied.

If apartment and condo prices are rising then so to is the value of my house.

Again, it is not Chinese capital but US$ returning to roost and all to our benefit.

More apartments and condos means more jobs constructing them.
It may not make sense, but it`s happening everywhere that Hong Kong money is hitting the condo markets. Then there are the commercial concerns.

[Newpublius]

It may not make sense, but it`s happening everywhere that Hong Kong money is hitting the condo markets. Then there are the commercial concerns.

So what? Whatever they buy will see the relative price of whatever that is increase. Its the necessary consequence of trade. Take China out of the equation, same issue just with Americans.

[Mac-7]

So what? Whatever they buy will see the relative price of whatever that is increase. Its the necessary consequence of trade. Take China out of the equation, same issue just with Americans.

This is part of the globalist mental attitute that has been infecting America and Europe for generations.

The goal seems to be a world where we are all just one big happy family with no nationalism, no national ambitions and no wars.

its real pie in the sky idealism that has much appeal to Americans who are tired of being No 1.

[Chris]

This is part of the globalist mental attitute that has been infecting America and Europe for generations.

The goal seems to be a world where we are all just one big happy family with no nationalism, no national ambitions and no wars.

its real pie in the sky idealism that has much appeal to Americans who are tired of being No 1.


Trade has always been global. It's not new.

What is new is notions of global government.

The goal of trade is not one big happy family. Where are you getting this nonsense?

[Mac-7]

Trade has always been global. It's not new.

What is new is notions of global government.

The goal of trade is not one big happy family. Where are you getting this nonsense?

I am talking about more than trade

national identity is a target of globalism

[donttread]

https://i.snag.gy/f9th34.jpg

He gets many things right, not everything , but many things.

[Chris]

Great haircut too.

[Chris]

I am talking about more than trade

national identity is a target of globalism


Nations are but a drop in the bucket of man's existence. One world global government just an extension of nations, as in United Nations vs United States. BREXT was a reversal of direction. We're moving toward smaller, more localized states.

[Bethere]

Nations are but a drop in the bucket of man's existence. One world global government just an extension of nations, as in United Nations vs United States. BREXT was a reversal of direction. We're moving toward smaller, more localized states.

No we're not.

[Mac-7]

Nations are but a drop in the bucket of man's existence. One world global government just an extension of nations, as in United Nations vs United States. BREXT was a reversal of direction.

We're moving toward smaller, more localized states.

We dont know how brext will turn out.

but the liberal/progressive goal that hillary represents is one world government.

You may think destroying national boundries and national idenity leads to more local control but it wont.

libertarians and anarchists will end up hating the world government wherever it is located just as much as you hate washington now.

[Chris]

No we're not.

We're not what? And why do you think so?