It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
You do understand that creating tariffs and taxes on imports usually create a condition where the opposing country does the same to our exported goods?
It ends up being a tit for tat.
Not saying it is bad, good, right or wrong, just that it happens.
...Then, in spring 2008, prices just as mysteriously fell back to their previous level. Jean Ziegler, the UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food, calls it “a silent mass murder”, entirely due to “man-made actions.” Through the 1990s, Goldman Sachs and others lobbied hard and the regulations [controlling agricultural futures contracts] were abolished. Suddenly, these contracts were turned into “derivatives” that could be bought and sold among traders who had nothing to do with agriculture. A market in “food speculation” was born. The speculators drove the price through the roof....” www.independent.co.uk...
...Today three companies, Archer Daniels Midland, Cargill, and Bunge control the world’s grain trade. Chemical giant Monsanto controls three-fifths of seed production. Unsurprisingly, in the last quarter of 2007, even as the world food crisis was breaking, Archer Daniels Midland’s profits jumped 20%, Monsanto 45%, and Cargill 60%. Recent speculation with food commodities has created another dangerous “boom.” After buying up grains and grain futures, traders are hoarding, withholding stocks and further inflating prices.... www.globalissues.org...
Originally posted by Rockdisjoint
reply to post by crimvelvet
A trade war with China would be a horrible idea and it would probably lead to WW3. On top of that I've never understood why so many people are hell bent on not receiving all this free stuff from China anyways. Historically protectionism [fascism] only impoverishes.
From what I understand from your [the protectionist] argument, the Chinese are lowering the value of their currency. Meaning, for every dollar that goes to China, the Chinese govt is giving us 2 times as we should be receiving. Meaning, all Chinese goods cost half as much as they should.
You [the protectionist] see this as bad, because you see cheap prices as bad -- In fact, those cheap prices are the main reason the U.S economy is suffering. If only U.S consumers had to pay more for everything, we would all be rich.
Basic factory salary in China leaves workers hurting India Times
...works at Foxconn's facility in the southern city of Foshan, makes just 2,000 yuan (295 dollars) a month --
...China's central government has expressed sympathy with the workers during the strikes, but at the same time has also tried to ensure that wages do not rise too fast and endanger export industries, a key driver of the economy.
While the minimum wage in some parts of China can be as low as 660 yuan a month, in Guangdong's Pearl River Delta, it has increased this year to around 1,000 yuan -- about 150 dollars....
"For 10 years, William Schmidt, a statistics professor at Michigan State University, has looked at how U.S. students stack up against students in other countries in math and science. "In fourth-grade, we start out pretty well, near the top of the distribution among countries; by eighth-grade, we're around average, and by 12th-grade, we're at the bottom of the heap, outperforming only two countries, Cyprus and South Africa."
:Source
... Surveys of corporations consistently find that businesses are focused outside • the U.S. to recruit necessary talent. In a 2002 survey, 16 global corporations complained that American schools did not produce students with global skills. United States companies agreed. The survey found that 30 percent of large U.S. companies “believed they had failed to exploit fully their international business opportunities due to insufficient personnel with international skills.” One respondent to the survey even noted, “If I wanted to recruit people who are both technically skilled and culturally aware, I wouldn’t even waste time looking for them on U.S. college campuses.”
SOURCE
An H-1B visa allows an employer to hire a nonimmigrant foreign worker to temporarily work in the U.S. in a specialty occupation or as a fashion model of distinguished merit and ability. The job offered to an H-1B worker must be a professional position that requires at least a bachelor's degree, or the equivalent, and the application of specialized knowledge. Many high-tech companies, such as Microsoft, IBM, Apple, Pfizer, as well as academic institutions, have utilized this program to bring in talented foreign professionals under H-1B status to help maintain their leadership in technology, science and business.
An H1B worker is authorized to work for the sponsoring employer for three years, with an option to extend for another three years...
Certain aliens working for the Department of Defense (DOD) are allowed to remain in H1B status for 10 years.
OK Mr. Economist, tell me HOW Americans are supposed to keep Buying those so called cheap Chinese goods without competing with the Chinese in WAGES???
If you are not competitive wage wise in a world without tariff protection aka Free Trade, you do not get hired.
(Business 101) Companies will move off-shore as they have in droves since the "Free Trade Agreements" were passed. Heck if I was a manufacturer I would too, Low wages, Low utilities, no environmental regs... such a deal!
Basic factory salary in China leaves workers hurting.
So Mr. Economist, How are Americans supposed to pay for our huge Federal debt while working for $150 bucks a month, the wage necessary for competing with a Chinese factory worker.
Is it any wonder Corporations now import workers from other countries?
Ok Mr. Economist what is YOUR solution to the mass exodus of American business and jobs????
Originally posted by perrolococz
@4:15 Ron says "Leading to abolishing the Federal Reserve, legalize competition to the Federal Reserve with competing currencies.." how could this be done?? I mean.. Yeah it sounds nice on paper (Or in a speech) but how? I mean, lets imagine he gets elected, in the "Short" span of time he is on charge (IIRC it was 4 years on the USA?) could he change what has been the norm for around 200 or so years?
That isn't true. If that was true then why are U.S wage rates much higher than Taiwanese wage rates? Wage rates are high in the U.S. because U.S employers have bid wage rates up. Like all other prices on the market, wage rates are determined by supply and demand, and the increased demand by U.S. employers has bid wages up.
Originally posted by patternfinder
That isn't true. If that was true then why are U.S wage rates much higher than Taiwanese wage rates? Wage rates are high in the U.S. because U.S employers have bid wage rates up. Like all other prices on the market, wage rates are determined by supply and demand, and the increased demand by U.S. employers has bid wages up.
This isn't true either, the wages go up so that the dollar can loose its value. when someone makes $10 per hour and the minimum wage goes up from $6 to $7, the person making $10 is effectively making $9 now due to prices having to go up to absorb the minimum wage increase.
Originally posted by AGWskeptic
Fun facts for Democrats: if Obama gets re-elected next year and we were to follow his budget as he proposed it, he would leave us with $18.6 trillion of debt by Jan '17. Here's how the accumulation of debt would then break down by President:
$ 4.2 - all presidents prior to Clinton
$ 1.5 - Clinton
$ 4.9 - Bush
$ 8.0 - Obama
But I would argue it goes beyond who happens to be President. If you add up the same $18.6 trillion of projected debt by Jan '17 by which party controlled 2 of the 3 bodies (president, House, Senate) at any given time, our national debt would be:
65% accumulated under Democrats
35% accumulated under Republicans
Those are what we call 'inconvenient facts'.
That's not to say I'm happy with the Republicans, just tired of so many being pissed off at the wrong people.
Originally posted by ontarff
Oh really? Did you consider the 16th Amendment to our Constitution?
I am a Ron Paul supporter but the way I understand law (I am not a lawyer), he would have to Amend the U.S. Constitution regarding federal income tax.
Yes, he wants to take our country back from the Fed. Because we are still in a "state of emergency" as declared in 1933, I believe he has the power to do that.