Announcement

Join us on Discord: https://discord.gg/nf43FxS
Discuss.
SuperJail Warden
Member
+166|1193
Trump promises to fix America's trade imbalance and 'bring jobs back' to the U.S. How can this be done?

American's over-consume every commodity. I think there might be more people employed making our stuff than there are unemployed Americas. There would be shortages of a lot of things if there were tariffs on Chinese products. I guess the U.S. would eventually produce domestic alternatives but there might not be enough American workers to do those things or do at at a sustainable wage?

How would our environment be affected by all of this? U.S. is actually growing more forest and trees every year due heavy farming and industry being outsourced. Do we roll back a lot of environmental regulation to make this happen? 

What do you guys think can or should be done regarding U.S. trade? What will Trump do?
uziq
Member
+138|926
it's a fantasy. like fixing tax evasion. so long as we're in a global capitalist system, this is the way the pinball game is tilting.

you had a good run, america. you took advantage of cheap labour to sustain a consumerist culture. now the producers are getting their own.
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,592|3579|eXtreme to the maX
Why did I read this as 'Fisting America's Trade'?

Preventing the offshoring of corporate profits would be a simple first step, if you want to be listed on the NYSE then you pay should pay tax in the US.
Dealing with offshoring of jobs is trickier. Traditionally the US has done this by imposing much more rigourous standards on foreign goods than those made domestically.
Your virus system is infected with windows. Please to be giving me your credit card details urgently
uziq
Member
+138|926
as if 80% of the american people could afford to replace all of their consumer goods, food, and services with ones predicated on the costs of 'all american' labour.
uziq
Member
+138|926
but hey i'm sure all those employers who were previously outsourcing jobs to mexico will be happy to pay their workers 3x as much to 'make america great again', being answerable to jingoistic catchphrases before their shareholders. and you can subsidise and offset the costs with all those increased tax revenu... oh wait

uuuuh trickle-down is a proven success, right guys?

america is going to look like russia during its mafia stage after the breakup of the USSR. it's a free-for-all right now.

Last edited by uziq (2016-11-27 03:05:19)

Shahter
Zee Ruskie
+280|4249|Moscow, Russia

uziq wrote:

it's a fantasy. like fixing tax evasion. so long as we're in a global capitalist system, this is the way the pinball game is tilting.
the way it goes, we might not remain in a global capitalist system much longer. every ponzi scheme crumbles, eventually.
if you open your mind too much your brain will fall out.
uziq
Member
+138|926

Shahter wrote:

uziq wrote:

it's a fantasy. like fixing tax evasion. so long as we're in a global capitalist system, this is the way the pinball game is tilting.
the way it goes, we might not remain in a global capitalist system much longer. every ponzi scheme crumbles, eventually.
except the sort where you control all the media outlets, have a populace of obeisant superstitious peasants and drunks, and employ an absurdist theatre director as your top political counsel. they last a while.
Shahter
Zee Ruskie
+280|4249|Moscow, Russia
well, the clock's ticking...
if you open your mind too much your brain will fall out.
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+1,959|2831|London, England

Shahter wrote:

uziq wrote:

it's a fantasy. like fixing tax evasion. so long as we're in a global capitalist system, this is the way the pinball game is tilting.
the way it goes, we might not remain in a global capitalist system much longer. every ponzi scheme crumbles, eventually.
How is it a ponzi scheme? Global trade has lifted billions out of poverty and subsistence living. Rust belt Americans had skills that were made obsolete. It will correct itself among their kids. It's painful, but not permanent.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
uziq
Member
+138|926

Shahter wrote:

well, the clock's ticking...
we know
uziq
Member
+138|926

Jay wrote:

Shahter wrote:

uziq wrote:

it's a fantasy. like fixing tax evasion. so long as we're in a global capitalist system, this is the way the pinball game is tilting.
the way it goes, we might not remain in a global capitalist system much longer. every ponzi scheme crumbles, eventually.
How is it a ponzi scheme? Global trade has lifted billions out of poverty and subsistence living. Rust belt Americans had skills that were made obsolete. It will correct itself among their kids. It's painful, but not permanent.
i think most analysis in the main suggests that growth and recovery for the 75th-99th percentile will not happen. that's most of the western advanced world. the wealth is being globally restructured and redistributed to emerging economies and cheaper hubs of production and manufacture. that's the global labour marketplace. couple that with technological automation and advances made from the other, 'top down' end of things, and the rustbelt worker communities aren't going anywhere fast. they're not all going to become advanced members of a new tertiary/quarternary sector. this is a myth that has been mis-sold (in the form of debt-heavy college educations, for a start) for the last 30 years.
Shahter
Zee Ruskie
+280|4249|Moscow, Russia

Jay wrote:

Shahter wrote:

uziq wrote:

it's a fantasy. like fixing tax evasion. so long as we're in a global capitalist system, this is the way the pinball game is tilting.
the way it goes, we might not remain in a global capitalist system much longer. every ponzi scheme crumbles, eventually.
How is it a ponzi scheme? Global trade has lifted billions out of poverty and subsistence living.
global trade didn't have "lift billions out of poverty and subsistence living" as its goal. the point was to, basically, have world wide financial system and division of labor, which provided for technological advances, which, in turn, allowed for better capital growth. once that system got fully saturated, the growth stopped - and when capitalism stops growing it turns on itself. the result - $19.9 trillion in debt. that's how it's a ponzi scheme.

Rust belt Americans had skills that were made obsolete. It will correct itself among their kids. It's painful, but not permanent.
19.9 trillion is not permanent? okay, tell me, when are you going to take care of all that?
if you open your mind too much your brain will fall out.
uziq
Member
+138|926
i think a confusion arises with debt when we consider national debt in the same way as individual or household debt. the whole system is essentially an arranged fiction – if everyone is invested, so to speak, having a debt you will never pay off isn't 'game over'.
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,592|3579|eXtreme to the maX

uziq wrote:

as if 80% of the american people could afford to replace all of their consumer goods, food, and services with ones predicated on the costs of 'all american' labour.
Manufacturing labour is a small part of the equation for the average product.
If you look at the average product price the retailer makes 20%, distributor 10%, tax 10%, manufacture 20%, overheads 20% labour comes down to almost nothing.
When you factor dole for unemployed 'mericans into the price there's no difference. I'm not sure how you go about forcing factoring it in to make a difference though.
Your virus system is infected with windows. Please to be giving me your credit card details urgently
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+1,959|2831|London, England

uziq wrote:

Jay wrote:

Shahter wrote:


the way it goes, we might not remain in a global capitalist system much longer. every ponzi scheme crumbles, eventually.
How is it a ponzi scheme? Global trade has lifted billions out of poverty and subsistence living. Rust belt Americans had skills that were made obsolete. It will correct itself among their kids. It's painful, but not permanent.
i think most analysis in the main suggests that growth and recovery for the 75th-99th percentile will not happen. that's most of the western advanced world. the wealth is being globally restructured and redistributed to emerging economies and cheaper hubs of production and manufacture. that's the global labour marketplace. couple that with technological automation and advances made from the other, 'top down' end of things, and the rustbelt worker communities aren't going anywhere fast. they're not all going to become advanced members of a new tertiary/quarternary sector. this is a myth that has been mis-sold (in the form of debt-heavy college educations, for a start) for the last 30 years.
I don't buy it. Global trade is not a zero-sum game and jobs aren't 1 for 1. I know the technologists boast of automating  nearly all jobs in the not distant future, but people tend to get creative and find new products to sell or new services to sell.

Macbeth talked about green jobs, and that's a great example of something that didn't exist before the 70s and didn't become popular until nearly 40 years later. Every great leap in technology comes with a displacement of the existing workforce and doom and gloom proclamations. No one talks now of all the typists that were put out of work by the Xerox machine, or the ploughmen put out of work by the tractor. They were either absorbed elsewhere or died in poverty on government assistance. The wheel turns.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+1,959|2831|London, England

Dilbert_X wrote:

uziq wrote:

as if 80% of the american people could afford to replace all of their consumer goods, food, and services with ones predicated on the costs of 'all american' labour.
Manufacturing labour is a small part of the equation for the average product.
If you look at the average product price the retailer makes 20%, distributor 10%, tax 10%, manufacture 20%, overheads 20% labour comes down to almost nothing.
When you factor dole for unemployed 'mericans into the price there's no difference. I'm not sure how you go about forcing factoring it in to make a difference though.
It doesn't matter to the end user, in a sane world, but it does matter to the producer. They need to maximize profits just like everyone else and if their product ends up costing $520 instead of the $490 of their competitor, guess who is going to move more product. That 6% difference in cost, which is negligible in the grand scheme, is what most consumers base their purchase on.

Last edited by Jay (2016-11-28 17:24:37)

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
uziq
Member
+138|926

Jay wrote:

uziq wrote:

Jay wrote:

How is it a ponzi scheme? Global trade has lifted billions out of poverty and subsistence living. Rust belt Americans had skills that were made obsolete. It will correct itself among their kids. It's painful, but not permanent.
i think most analysis in the main suggests that growth and recovery for the 75th-99th percentile will not happen. that's most of the western advanced world. the wealth is being globally restructured and redistributed to emerging economies and cheaper hubs of production and manufacture. that's the global labour marketplace. couple that with technological automation and advances made from the other, 'top down' end of things, and the rustbelt worker communities aren't going anywhere fast. they're not all going to become advanced members of a new tertiary/quarternary sector. this is a myth that has been mis-sold (in the form of debt-heavy college educations, for a start) for the last 30 years.
I don't buy it. Global trade is not a zero-sum game and jobs aren't 1 for 1
http://www.demos.org/blog/11/14/14/inco … -milanovic

Global inequality studies were made possible by two events that occurred at about the same time, in the mid-1980s. First, for the first time ever we had income distribution data for most of the countries in the world. Before, you didn't have household surveys from the Soviet Republics, China and most of Africa. That changed around mid 1980s/late 1980s.

The second thing that changed was, of course, globalization, the inclusion of China and formerly Communist countries in the world market, and thus much greater awareness of the large income gaps between countries and peoples, and of course greater competition.

It turns out that—depending on the year and how detailed your data are—some 50 to 60 percent of income differences between individuals in the world is due simply to the mean income differences between the countries where people live. In other words, if you want to be rich, you’d better be born in a rich country (or emigrate there). You can see that in the figure here, where very poorest people in the United States have an income level which is equal to that of the middle class in China or even upper middle class in India.

So that's very striking. At least half of your income is determined by where you live, which for most people is where you were born. Then about 20 percent is due to the income level of your parents. So, your citizenship plus your parental background explain around two-thirds or even 70 percent of your income.

Then, obviously, if I had data for gender, race, ethnicity and other things, which are similarly exogenously “given” to an individual, that percentage would go up, perhaps to more than 80 percent.

I am quite confident that if you were to add other things which, I underline, you did nothing to deserve or to be penalized for, you would go, probably, over 80 percent of your income being thus determined.

The lion’s share of that is due to citizenship, or for the individuals like myself who are just residents of rich countries and still get all the benefits, to the residency. This is what I call “the citizenship premium” or “citizenship rent.”
this is the basic structure that is flipping, in my opinion. this is the western 'growth' that is stagnating or recessing – the right to be paid (vastly) more to do the exact same job in one country rather than the other. the american worker isn't having to retrain from handling a plough to driving a tractor. they are finding that manufacturing and production wealth is leveraging an entirely new middle-class on the other side of the globe. it's far more drastic than any gradual technical advance, which has been analysed to death in the marxist critique of specialisation.

Last edited by uziq (2016-11-28 17:33:52)

Cybargs
Moderated
+2,268|4190

Jay wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

uziq wrote:

as if 80% of the american people could afford to replace all of their consumer goods, food, and services with ones predicated on the costs of 'all american' labour.
Manufacturing labour is a small part of the equation for the average product.
If you look at the average product price the retailer makes 20%, distributor 10%, tax 10%, manufacture 20%, overheads 20% labour comes down to almost nothing.
When you factor dole for unemployed 'mericans into the price there's no difference. I'm not sure how you go about forcing factoring it in to make a difference though.
It doesn't matter to the end user, in a sane world, but it does matter to the producer. They need to maximize profits just like everyone else and if their product ends up costing $520 instead of the $490 of their competitor, guess who is going to move more product. That 6% difference in cost, which is negligible in the grand scheme, is what most consumers base their purchase on.
from a econ standpoint, true. from a marketing standpoint, probs not.

inferior products are sold all the time at a higher price point and sometimes have better sales numbers.
https://cache.www.gametracker.com/server_info/203.46.105.23:21300/b_350_20_692108_381007_FFFFFF_000000.png
KEN-JENNINGS
I am all that is MOD!
+2,773|4105|949

not to mention dilberts drive-by explanation of manufacturing costs is simplistic at best.

Yes, labor costs (in China) are not as far off as people generally assume.  Resources are cheaper in developing nations.  Ability to scale manufacturing is cheaper.  Labor laws are more pro-industry.  Environmental laws aren't as strict.  China is not the cheapest labor pool in the world anymore, but pure labor cost isn't everything.
Cybargs
Moderated
+2,268|4190

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

not to mention dilberts drive-by explanation of manufacturing costs is simplistic at best.

Yes, labor costs (in China) are not as far off as people generally assume.  Resources are cheaper in developing nations.  Ability to scale manufacturing is cheaper.  Labor laws are more pro-industry.  Environmental laws aren't as strict.  China is not the cheapest labor pool in the world anymore, but pure labor cost isn't everything.
To be honest it isn't OBM's that are 'sending jobs overseas', pretty much all manufacturing is outsourced and done by a supplier. Companies just source material from whoever can give the better value.
https://cache.www.gametracker.com/server_info/203.46.105.23:21300/b_350_20_692108_381007_FFFFFF_000000.png
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,592|3579|eXtreme to the maX

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

not to mention dilberts drive-by explanation of manufacturing costs is simplistic at best.
I thought I'd better dumb it down for Uzique's benefit.

Yes, labor costs (in China) are not as far off as people generally assume.  Resources are cheaper in developing nations.  Ability to scale manufacturing is cheaper.  Labor laws are more pro-industry.  Environmental laws aren't as strict.  China is not the cheapest labor pool in the world anymore, but pure labor cost isn't everything.
They suck up a lot of shit and say yes sir no sir so execs like them, but quite often moving stuff to China costs more and creates other problems.
Your virus system is infected with windows. Please to be giving me your credit card details urgently
uziq
Member
+138|926
i don't think i need things dumbed down. i budget and cost production on a daily basis and divide up work between english and indian contracts. i know the differences – and it's a lot more than just the physical manufacture.
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+1,959|2831|London, England

Cybargs wrote:

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

not to mention dilberts drive-by explanation of manufacturing costs is simplistic at best.

Yes, labor costs (in China) are not as far off as people generally assume.  Resources are cheaper in developing nations.  Ability to scale manufacturing is cheaper.  Labor laws are more pro-industry.  Environmental laws aren't as strict.  China is not the cheapest labor pool in the world anymore, but pure labor cost isn't everything.
To be honest it isn't OBM's that are 'sending jobs overseas', pretty much all manufacturing is outsourced and done by a supplier. Companies just source material from whoever can give the better value.
It seems that a lot of consumer goods are all built in the same factories, just with different brand names affixed. Like, Sam Adams beer is actually brewed by Miller in Milwaukee because they have the facilities that can handle the large scale manufacturing. Sam Adams simply provides the recipe and oversees the ingredient procurement. If I walk into a Home Depot I'll see the same tool with three different brand names on it and at three different price points. There is no Ridgid factory anymore, or a Milwaukee tools factory, it's all made by TTI in Hong Kong. Differences between the products are negligible. We've commoditized everything and it's all been VE'd to fail at 10,000 cycles.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
SuperJail Warden
Member
+166|1193
Interesting article from the WSJ about business owners in Texas being afraid of Trump withdrawing from NAFTA.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/in-texas-bu … 1480349275

Texas exports $100 billion in products to Mexico every year. More than all the other states combined. Withdrawing from NAFTA would seriously disrupt that. Oh well Texas voted for Trump over Clinton by 10 points. Elections have consequences.
pirana6
Go Cougs!
+625|3764|Washington St.
Wait until he deports all the illegals and everybody down there working under the table is gone. All the sudden every farm/factory/ranch owner has to pay ALL their workers minimum wage and profits fall.

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2017 Jeff Minard