Offshoring: for it before they were against it?

Offshoring: for it before they were against it? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

mnottertail -> Offshoring: for it before they were against it? (1/16/2012 8:15:40 AM)
We deplore the practice of locating plants in foreign countries solely to take advantage of low wage rates in order to produce goods primarily for sale in the United States. We will take action to discourage such unfair and disruptive practices that result in the loss of American jobs.

kalikshama -> RE: Offshoring: for it before they were against it? (1/16/2012 9:02:01 AM)
Book Review: Free Trade Doesn't Work In 1972 the Republican Presidential Platform included the following plank: “We deplore the practice of locating plants in foreign countries solely to take advantage of low wages in order to produce goods primarily for sale in the United States. We will take action to discourage such unfair and disruptive practices that result in the loss of American jobs.” In 2008 the Republican Party’s Presidential Platform's position was that, “America's producers can compete successfully in the international arena — as long as they have a level playing field. Today's tax code is tilted against them, with one of the highest corporate tax rates of all developed countries. That not only hurts American investors, managers, and the U.S. balance of trade; it also sends American jobs overseas. We support a major reduction in the corporate tax rate so that American companies stay competitive with their foreign counterparts and American jobs can remain in this country.” What happened? In the book Free Trade Doesn’t Work: What Should Replace it and Why (U.S. Business & Industrial Council, 2010). Ian Fletcher argues for manages trade, not free trade. He sets out what he terms “eight dubious assumptions” regarding “free trade” and its Ricardian underpinnings:

mnottertail -> RE: Offshoring: for it before they were against it? (1/16/2012 9:13:41 AM)
Well, actually, I am for tarriffs and bounties, it is how we used to make our money prior to the 1913 income tax. It solves most of our problems. We need such an industrial policy in these United States. It is of such noble American national birth and necessity, that there was a subterfuge perpetrated to remove it from the states, and enshrine it in federal law, by the Father of our Country, et al. We need to give our six months notice of withdrawl from the WTO and NAFTA, and any GATTs we have out there.

mnottertail -> RE: Offshoring: for it before they were against it? (1/16/2012 10:28:00 AM)
Why was this such a great idea that it was nailed in the national platform, but corporate appeasement is what is gonna make America great? Especially given the fact that 100% of ALL realities and events tell us that it is plain wrong and a wholly destructive act to our Nation?

Musicmystery -> RE: Offshoring: for it before they were against it? (1/16/2012 11:10:26 AM)
quote: America's producers can compete successfully in the international arena — as long as they have a level playing field. Today's tax code is tilted against them, with one of the highest corporate tax rates of all developed countries. Totally false, incidentally. The U.S. has the second LOWEST corporate tax rates among developed countries, behind only Iceland. http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2011/07/05/260535/graph-corporate-tax-second-lowest/?mobile=nc This is interesting too: Conservatives love to point out that other OECD countries have lowered their corporate tax rates in recent years, but they conveniently ignore that “these countries have also closed corporate tax loopholes while the U.S. has expanded them.” As CAP Director for Tax and Budget Policy Michael Linden has noted, the U.S. is actually a very low-tax country across the board. Recently, conservative commentator Bill Kristol chastised his own party for pretending that lowering the corporate tax rate is a cure-all for America’s economic woes. On Fox News Sunday, he interrupted a panelist who again tried to assert the U.S. is suffering from a high corporate tax rate: “Republicans are making a mistake if they focus on big businesses and corporate tax rates. Corporations have a ton of cash. The corporate tax rate is not killing big business in America.”

mnottertail -> RE: Offshoring: for it before they were against it? (1/16/2012 11:58:59 AM)
I wonder if we will ever have a discussion on this where the apeals to 'common sense' include such facts as that from the civil war taxations to years past the income tax (which was zero and then something REDUCED to around 25 percent or more) our economy flourished. And the windfall profit taxes on corporations and individuals during that time really set up a fuckin howl....but it paid off the treasury.

Fellow -> RE: Offshoring: for it before they were against it? (1/16/2012 2:00:35 PM)
I am wondering about the political aspect of off-shoring. We know the large scale US economy is planned economy (not free market) and secondly, it is finance driven. Who did it, and how was this strategy planned? The scheme involving US transfer of manufacturing capacity and technology to China and then importing goods back, while the trade deficit is balanced by China buying US Treasury bonds, can not be just a result of free flow of business activity. I remember in 1990-s (Clinton years) there was a lot of discussion about harm these policies cause (confronted by government/mainstream media propaganda).

Musicmystery -> RE: Offshoring: for it before they were against it? (1/16/2012 2:02:37 PM)
Have you heard of Richard Nixon? [:D]

mnottertail -> RE: Offshoring: for it before they were against it? (1/16/2012 2:05:07 PM)
He was him in 72 as well, interestingly enough. But we started the slow undoing of the american system of industry, manufacture and economic nationalism long before tricky dicky.

tweakabelle -> RE: Offshoring: for it before they were against it? (1/16/2012 2:09:38 PM)
quote: I wonder if we will ever have a discussion on this where the apeals to 'common sense' include such facts as that from the civil war taxations to years past the income tax (which was zero and then something REDUCED to around 25 percent or more) our economy flourished. Some more agenda items for that discussion would include the fact the many of the main claims of free market economics - including the specific claims that lower taxes generate prosperity, small government is always good for the economy and big government is bad, and that free trade benefits all - have all been repeatedly demonstrated, at theoretical and empirical levels, to fail to stand up to scrutiny. Despite this evidence, conservatives cling to these claims like peasants clinging to religious mantra, insisting on their accuracy and truth. Of course, they also choose to ignore that the only beneficiaries of such policies are the already rich and powerful. So should we rename 'free market economics' as 'billionaire-friendly economics'?

mnottertail -> RE: Offshoring: for it before they were against it? (1/16/2012 2:22:52 PM)
Well the real issue when we look at the one world centrally planned bureaucratically controlled military-industrial godless economy choiceless multinational corporate government, we have to ask ourselves, "who then are the real socialists?" Perhaps an Orwellian might shamble along on the road to Shambala...provide a little insight to this vexing question. Is there some sense of shame to be for America? To stake a claim in this world? To extend our American Century as far as the eye can see? To wrest our American Century and our common welfare from the myth of the free market, or global market?

Fellow -> RE: Offshoring: for it before they were against it? (1/16/2012 5:59:11 PM)
quote: Have you heard of Richard Nixon? Certainly, Nixon opened the path. Still, I think G.H. Bush was a key figure here, Clinton being over-achieving associate who cemented the path, and G.W. Bush just did let off-shoring run wild.

MrRodgers -> RE: Offshoring: for it before they were against it? (1/17/2012 5:53:27 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kalikshama Book Review: Free Trade Doesn't Work In 1972 the Republican Presidential Platform included the following plank: “We deplore the practice of locating plants in foreign countries solely to take advantage of low wages in order to produce goods primarily for sale in the United States. We will take action to discourage such unfair and disruptive practices that result in the loss of American jobs.” In 2008 the Republican Party’s Presidential Platform's position was that, “America's producers can compete successfully in the international arena — as long as they have a level playing field. Today's tax code is tilted against them, with one of the highest corporate tax rates of all developed countries. That not only hurts American investors, managers, and the U.S. balance of trade; it also sends American jobs overseas. We support a major reduction in the corporate tax rate so that American companies stay competitive with their foreign counterparts and American jobs can remain in this country.” What happened? In the book Free Trade Doesn’t Work: What Should Replace it and Why (U.S. Business & Industrial Council, 2010). Ian Fletcher argues for manages trade, not free trade. He sets out what he terms “eight dubious assumptions” regarding “free trade” and its Ricardian underpinnings: You all forget the American capitalist's creed...GREED. There is no other explanation. I find it a bit amazing that the discussion hasn't turned to reform of the investor class and the outlandish financial favoritism granted upon them. This is not about being 'competitive' this is not about just making a profit, this is not about free trade whatever that is, this is not about taxes that in fact they don't pay. This is about greed.

MrRodgers -> RE: Offshoring: for it before they were against it? (1/17/2012 6:03:14 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Fellow quote: Have you heard of Richard Nixon? Certainly, Nixon opened the path. Still, I think G.H. Bush was a key figure here, Clinton being over-achieving associate who cemented the path, and G.W. Bush just did let off-shoring run wild. Actually pushed by Reagan and Bush I, it was under Clinton that the US failed to take any real action against China (Tienanmen Sq.) even after a conditional 1980 granting of MFN status. (most favored nation trading status) With the MFN since being $trillions in profits...need I say anymore ?

Page: [1]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125