Welcome to the global market. American workers NEED NOT APPLY. Thank you, free traders.

[Zalatix]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/20/apple-ireland-jobs_n_1440012.html?ref=topbar

Apple: Ireland Headquarters To Add 500 New Jobs

DUBLIN (Reuters) - Apple is to hire 500 people in Ireland in the latest boost to the indebted euro zone country's multinational sector, one of the few bright spots in a struggling economy.

The consumer electronics giant will increase the headcount at its European headquarters in the southern city of Cork over the next 18 months from 2,800 at present, a spokesman for the company said.

He said the jobs would "support our growing business across Europe," but he did not say what kind of jobs would be created. The Cork operation provides distribution, supply chain management and back office functions.

Bailed out by the EU/IMF in late 2010 and midway through a punishing eight-year austerity drive, Ireland has an unemployment rate of 14.3 percent, its highest since 1993 and more than three times the level of 2007.

While workers are still being laid off as consumer spending continues to shrink, Dublin has succeeded in attracting Google and Facebook thanks to its low corporate tax rates and educated, English-speaking workforce within the eurozone.

Generics drug maker Mylan on Wednesday announced it would hire 500 people in Ireland.

[gateley]

1. Our anger needs to be directed at the laws that enable these companies to

do this -- or gives them incentive to.

The cards are stacked against the United States, and these companies are doing what companies do -- go where they can realize a greater profit.

How can we make it profitable for them to remain in -- or come back to -- the United States?

That's what we have to do to see any change, I think.

[Zalatix]

2. Yeah but if we direct our anger at these laws, we're called racists, John Birchers and Xenophobes.

[gateley]

4. By whom?

And it does no good to direct our anger at the companies -- they'll do what it takes to appease us somewhat, and keep on keepin' on.

The ONLY way we can change the laws is to get good people in DC, and if 2010 was a harbinger of things to come, we're screwn.

[Zalatix]

7. This isn't the only example.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002532755#post4

[gateley]

9. Well, fuck 'em. It's just the better thing to do, economically and morally,

to help ourselves.

I know you agree.

[coalition_unwilling]

8. Alternatively, if capital faces few or no barriers to movement across international

boundaries, then neither should labor.

[TheMastersNemesis]

11. We Can Eliminate The Minimum Wage

We can eliminate the minimum wage laws and let the free market determine the cost of labor. That's what the GOP and US Chamber of Commerce want to do. Let's see they pay Chinese workers 53 cents and hour. If you are lucky enough to be in India you can get $1 a day cutting up ships for salvage.

[sabrina 1]

43. Tax them when they go overseas. Take away any tax breaks they have right now.

[gateley]

81. Sounds simple and it COULD be that simple, but just try getting that

enacted.

Plus I'm thinking the corporations, who aren't "international" already would become so and not have to suffer American Company PUNISHMENT!

If that happens, we should tax them @ imports -- and why aren't we doing that already?

Never mind, no need to answer. Money.

[banned from Kos]

3. Apple is an international company.

No one complains when BMW employs thousands here in the USA.

[gateley]

5. Good point. And that raises a question (in my mind, anyway) --

Why does BMW (and Honda and the others) have employees here? Why aren't THEY going to China? What makes it beneficial for them to be here, and why can't our companies do the same?

[hack89]

20. BMW has two plants in China. Honda has four. nt

[Zalatix]

6. They sell their stuff here. They should build it here.

[gateley]

10. So should/could we sell what we manufacture in other countries to those countries,

and do the same thing here?

We REALLY need to save ourselves, quick!

[muriel_volestrangler]

12. And Apple sell their stuff outside the US too

Some figures:
Apple employees: 70,000, of which 47,000 are in the USA - 67%
Apple revenue: Fifty-eight percent of revenues came from international sales

So, while Apple's sales are mostly outside the USA, their employees are mostly inside it. And you can't make those international sales without some people in the countries and regions you sell in.

So is another 500 employees in Ireland really a big problem for you?

I can see a beef with the outsourcing of manufacturing to Foxconn. But do you really think growing worldwide markets by employing people in those markets is a problem?

[Zalatix]

14. Actually there are another 700,000 workers that work for Apple through contractors

mostly OUTSIDE the United States.

And you want to know if I have a problem with what's going on in general? It's not a matter of IF, but rather, WHY. Take a look at our trade deficit and then ask yourself WHY I have a problem with this.

If we keep going like this then it won't matter in the end - our trade deficit is growing our national debt and it's lowering the value of the dollar, too. In time we won't be able to afford imports. Problem solved.

[Spider Jerusalem]

24. You know why the US trade deficit is as large as it is?

The US imports ten to eleven million barrels of oil a day. Which is something the US can't make up with domestic production; the only thing the US can do is use less oil. Until that happens the US is going to have a trade deficit in the tens of billions per month and in the hundreds of billions per year. Oil imports account for more than HALF of the US trade deficit.

[Sea-Dog]

26. I know if it wasn't funny enough

googling for random links of coke cola or apple mac opening offices in Ireland as proof that Americans are somehow singled out. or that no one buys American forgetting that everything from apple/movies/music and soft drinks are mostly fought after. its the attempts to hide obvious dog-whistling to appeal to the center right.

[Zalatix]

35. The right-wing US Chamber of Commerce loves people like you.

Our NON oil imports still vastly outsize our exports.

That is proof that people are not buying American goods nearly as much as they're exporting their own stuff to us.

You still don't understand how trade deficits impact jobs, do you? Oh well. Keep kissing the US Chamber of Commerce's ass. They love you.

[Sea-Dog]

41. LOL calm down love

nowhere have I typed in defence of Chamber of Commerce whereas you have been caught dog whistling about foreigners stealing jobs based on a googled link about jobs in Ireland. pure comedy

[Zalatix]

45. Smile! Because the US Chamber of Commerce still loves you!

You don't have to "type in defence of Chamber of Commerce." You simply have been caught parroting their talking points.

How much do they pay you to write this tripe, anyway?

[Zalatix]

31. BZZZZZZZZZZZT. Oil accounts for only HALF of the trade deficit.

http://www.epi.org/publication/trade-deficit-2011-china-accounted-fourths/

The U.S. trade deficit in non-oil goods—a deficit dominated by trade in electronics, autos, auto parts, and other manufactured products—increased from $369.7 billion in 2010 to $399.7 billion in 2010, an increase of $30.1 billion (8.1 percent). The U.S. trade deficit with China, which is dominated by trade in non-oil manufactured goods, increased from $273.1 billion in 2010 to a record $295.5 billion in 2011. This $22.4 billion (8.2 percent) growth in the overall U.S. trade deficit with China was responsible for three-fourths of the growth in the U.S. trade deficit in non-oil goods (conservatively estimated).

[Spider Jerusalem]

33. I said that, clearly you can't read

and eliminate trade deficits in every other category and the US would still have a primary trade deficit of more than $20 billion a month from oil; you can't really argue that that's insignificant.

[Zalatix]

34. Clearly you are the one who cannot read. Oil is NOT over HALF our deficit. It is LESS than half.

Cutting our trade deficit by MORE THAN HALF with the use of tariffs is in fact quite effective.

Or if you dislike tariffs, we can let the non-oil trade deficit, which accounts for over half the deficit (and unlike you, I cited that fact), drive up our national debt and drive down our currency, until imports become too expensive anyway.

Tariffs, or import price inflation. Take your pick.

[Spider Jerusalem]

39. No, you're the one who evidently can't read.

The relative importance of energy is evident in the fact that the 2011 deficit of $326.8 billion in petroleum products alone represented 58% of the total U.S. goods and services deficit last year.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/03/28/idUSWNA365720120328

58% is not less than half.

[Zalatix]

42. LOL you don't read articles, do you? Learn to read before you start attacking me.

$399 billion in non-oil goods is LARGER than $326 billion in oil.

If we get rid of oil, we still have a nearly $400 billion yearly deficit in non-oil goods to deal with. That will still sink us: the difference is that it'll only take a little while longer. And that is one fact you will run away from when you come up with your next off the mark response: ending the importation of oil will not save us at all. Your logic is crap. Keep coming back and I will hammer you with this. Relentlessly. Count on it!

[Spider Jerusalem]

46. Again:

http://www.economicpopulist.org/content/2011-annual-trade-deficit-37-us-gdp-china-goods-2-us-gdp

For 2011, exports of $2,103.1 billion and imports of $2,661.1 billion resulted in a goods and services deficit of $558.0 billion

558-326=?

The total trade deficit is measured in goods + services. You're citing data that don't present the whole picture.

[Zalatix]

48. Again:

If we get rid of oil, we still have a nearly $400 billion yearly deficit in non-oil goods to deal with. That will still sink us: the difference is that it'll only take a little while longer. And that is one fact you will run away from when you come up with your next off the mark response: ending the importation of oil will not save us at all.

Oh and the Economic Populist? That's an anti-offshoring site.

2011 Annual Trade Deficit is 3.7% of U.S. GDP, China Goods 2% of U.S. GDP

China sells very little oil. With a trade deficit of 3.7% of GDP and the deficit with China contributing 2%

I told you, I can go on about this forever. You aren't getting anywhere. Not with me, and certainly not with most of America, which is increasingly HOSTILE to free trade.

At some point, when the people come out into the streets with pitchforks and torches, you'll get it. There is no room in America for this shit that you're selling. We're no longer interested. Go check the polls, buddy.

[Spider Jerusalem]

56. I'm not "selling" anything

I'm just honestly rather gobsmacked by your hypocrisy and ignorance. You'd presumably be fantastically pissed off if a European company opened a US office and refused to hire American workers, yet you have your knickers in a twist over American companies hiring Europeans to work in their European offices; the fact that these are multinational corporations which do a significant share of their business in the EU seems to be an irrelevancy to you for some reason. You don't get to have it both ways.

[Zalatix]

57. Correction: you're doing a poor job of selling.

First, I am in no way gobsmacked or otherwise shocked by your brazen intellectual dishonesty and downright unfounded arrogance. Your above sentence was an incoherent babble - either that or a childish temper tantrum. A typical flame-out by a free trader who realizes they've backed themselves into a corner. Your arguments come a dime a dozen. Nothing new here.

Second of all, I notice you did not even address the fact that doing away with importing oil will not end the massive trade deficit, nor will it stop the decline of the dollar or the growth of our foreign-held national debt. You obviously lack the knowledge and reasoning to understand what any of that means, it's completely outside the context of your education on this subject. All discussions with free traders must inevitably end in this way. Again, not surprising.

What you do not understand is the fact that companies lay off Americans and hire abroad to produce goods to sell in the United States. Then when they produce goods to sell abroad they again refuse to hire Americans to do so. American workers are being cut out of both sides of the equation: they're being refused employment to produce goods here, and refused employment to produce goods for other countries. You do not understand this. You cannot understand this. This is way, way above your level. Sadly, it is also the most basic of economic facts.

Look around you. America is rebelling against this offshoring and globalism bullshit. We want our jobs back and we're coming close to a revolution against free trade. Look at the polls. Your side is shrinking. We've heard your arguments a thousand times. We get it. We also reject you.

Do you get it yet?

[Spider Jerusalem]

58. Look around me?

You're assuming I even live in the US (I don't). And I don't really think that Apple is laying off Americans in order to hire workers in Ireland; they're still headquartered in Cupertino, last time I checked. And I haven't actually made any arguments in favour of "offshoring". Thanks for presuming to put words into my mouth, though. (Pointing out that multinational corporations are going to hire people in countries where they have a sales presence isn't an argument in favour of offshoring, fyi.)

And sure, companies lay off American workers and export the jobs to China, or Mexico; they also lay off British workers and export the jobs to Eastern Europe (the US isn't the only place this sort of thing is happening, in case you weren't aware). I don't support that, and given the choice I'll personally buy a product made in a developed country with health and safety and pension laws, trade unions, minimum wage, maximum hours, and worker protections over one made in China or a similar country.

[Zalatix]

60. So what if they're headquarted in Cupertino? They hire 750,000 people outside the US

to produce goods that they sell in the US.

And they hire workers abroad to produce goods that they sell abroad.

Who doesn't get to participate in the growth of Apple? Americans.

[Spider Jerusalem]

61. They sell more outside the US than in it

They hire workers in China to produce good they sell everywhere; they don't have any production facilities in the EU either. Or in Japan. Or in India. Or in Australia for that matter. They also hire 750K people outside the EU to produce goods they sell in the EU. It isn't just America.

[Zalatix]

62. Then we need tariffs to force them to hire American workers to produce goods they sell here.

Period.

[Spider Jerusalem]

67. Why does America get to be a special case?

You can impose import duties all you want; as long as companies like Apple continue to sell more of their products outside the US than in it, they're not going to change; the US is no longer in a position to make that sort of demand, honestly. The only way something like that would conceivably work at all would be if every other developed country imposed a similar import duty. Which isn't going to happen.

[Zalatix]

68. Tariffs mean that they'll be forced to hire Americans to produce the iPads they sell HERE.

We export so little, compared to our deficit, that what foreign countries do with import duties means fuck all in a trade war.

Our trade deficit dictates in the clearest terms that the WORLD has more to lose than we do in a trade war. If we cut off imports they lose more jobs than we do. If they cut off our oil THEN GOOD!!! That means less global warming and we can finally move to alternative fuels.

Companies are justified to hire workers in China to produce the goods they sell in China. They are NOT justified to then turn around and ALSO hire Chinese workers to produce the goods they make here. At what point do you get it?

[Spider Jerusalem]

69. Well no, actually

that just means Americans will pay more; as long as most of their sales are outside the US, they have no real incentive for relocating production to the US.

[Zalatix]

70. More US Chamber of Commerce propaganda, eh?

So Apple won't relocate production of American-bound iPads to America, even if not doing so will close off their access to this market?

That's bullshit. We used to build things here and there was no problem selling them here.

But, as I said, and you continue to avoid, the other option is to let these trade deficits drive down the value of the dollar and drive up our foreign-held debt until we can't afford to import it anyway. Yeah, you thought I forgot about your reluctance to address this?

[Recursion]

78. How will a tariff close off access to this market?

It will make iPads more expensive, sure (or Apple will move their factories from China to even cheaper places like Indonesia). You really think Mac people will pay $599 but won't pay $699?

[Zalatix]

88. High-enough tariffs would make it more profitable for Apple to produce the goods here.

If the iPad is $699 made in the USA versus $1,500 made in China (due to tariffs) they'll make it in the USA.

[nadinbrzezinski]

59. For the record, they do

http://www.bmwusfactory.com/

[Zalatix]

63. Thumbs up! We need more of that.

[nadinbrzezinski]

64. Think of WHERE they are placed though

and as soon as right to work expands ...

[Zalatix]

65. There is that, too.

Somewhere upthread someone nailed it with the suspicion that hiring in the US is a move meant to bust unions in Germany/Europe.

Perhaps the best way is to force them to hire here, as part of a strategy to build up an employee's market? Then the employees can regain their right to unionize?

[nadinbrzezinski]

66. You want to close borders

that horse left the barn a while ago. Here is what NEEDS to happen. They want to play in the international arena. FINE...

We need to start unions that cross international borders. Thankfully the Communications Workers of America are FINALLY the first ones to start working on a NORTH AMERICAN union with their Mexican counterparts.

If my cost of labor is essentially the same because they went ahead and unionized around the world, why move my factories across the world?

Until this happens, effectively...

People in the leadership of unions back in the 1880s understood this... we forgot it... COMMIES!!!!

[Zalatix]

71. Tariffs can work. So can inflating away the national debt.

China is big now because they did a combination of both.

And we could throw on top of that a GLOBAL unionization; however, it's going to be hard to unionize in China. Their military is so powerful they can even crush pro-democracy movements.

In fact, it's going to take more than unionization, it's going to take the rise of a global worker's party.

[pampango]

80. Tariffs don't work. Just ask FDR. But I do like your idea of global unions and workers' party. n/t

[nadinbrzezinski]

85. Intelligent tariffs work

Several of our trade partners have them, see Germany for example, they don't use this name.

We shoud go back to using intelligent tariffs. One good target would be all kinds of green technologies. They need subsidies and protective tariffs. Solyndra failed due to a lack of that and the Chinese sold under production costs. That frm of trade war would not work if there was a protective tariff in place.

Don't worry it is an article of faith by th free traders that tariffs don't work.

[Zalatix]

87. Yes indeed, BLIND use of tariffs DO NOT WORK. Free Traders think we just want a blanket tariff war.

That is simply not true.

What we want is tariffs on goods produced by heavy pollution, ultra cheap wages and slave labor, and by prison labor.

If I as President were to find out that BMW was outsourcing to America to avoid German union labor I would hit them with some kind of heavy sanctions, too, to protect the German labor unions. I may not even let them build factories here at all; at the very least I would pressure the South into unionizing to eliminate BMW's cheap labor advantage. They ain't gonna get Bavarian quality work out of moving to China, that's for sure.

I bet Pampango's head will explode when s/he reads that.

[nadinbrzezinski]

83. In macro economics tariffs have a limited use

And are only effective if used to protect critical industries, such as steel. When you apply them willy nilly you will end up with a trade war that benefits nobody.

Good tariffs, steel and any emerging industry.

Bad tariffs well Smoot Halley. (Aka the great depression era ones)

They are a triple edged sword.

[TheMastersNemesis]

15. Banned From Kos Is Full Of It

[Romulox]

16. BMW employs people in the cheap labor, right to work South as a way to bust its Unions

back in Germany.

So yes, somebody complains.

[Brickbat]

19. Right on.

I complain. BMW goes to those areas because they know they'll get away with it. Those areas are happy to take whatever crumbs BMW gives.

[Zalatix]

36. Woah. Did not think of it that way.

You hit on a VERY interesting point.

[Sea-Dog]

13. good news

[Romulox]

17. LOL. What a refreshing P.O.V. you introduce to DU!

[Spider Jerusalem]

25. Sure it's good news

Ireland has 14.3% unemployment out of a population of 4.4 million. A thousand jobs make more of a difference in Ireland than they would in the US, and it's really hard to see why international corporations shouldn't hire people in the countries where they do business; it's not really a zero-sum game. If Apple, or Mylan, weren't hiring people in Ireland, there's not really any evidence that they'd be creating those jobs in the US instead, and it's frankly stupid to think they would.

[Romulox]

27. Remember last week when you were pretending not to be a cheap labor corporatist?

Guess the mask is off, huh?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=573125

[Spider Jerusalem]

29. Europe has "cheap labour"? Since when?

[Zalatix]

37. You mean you're the only person here who doesn't know this?

Irish labor is pretty cheap. And the country is known for its ultra-low corporate taxes, too.

Funny, how you don't know that.

[Spider Jerusalem]

40. If Irish labour is cheap it's because they have close to 15% unemployment

And in point of fact comparative unit labour costs for Ireland are slightly MORE than in the US; see here, from the US Bureau of Labor Statistics: http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/ichcc.pdf (US$36.30/hour for Ireland vs US$34.74 for the US).

And Ireland has very low corporate taxes, but so do many other countries (and in point of fact the US has the highest corporation tax in the developed world; 35% vs 26% for the UK, 15% for Germany, 27.5% in Italy, etc).

[Zalatix]

44. You're wrong again about corporate taxes.

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/03/30/456005/reminder-corporate-taxes-very-low/

[img][/img]

[Spider Jerusalem]

47. The top-line corporate tax rate in the US is 35%.

Which is higher than any other OECD country.

If the US generates less revenue from corporate taxes it's because the US economy is larger, in part (what's US GDP vs Norway's?), and the fact that the US allows more deductions, credits and loopholes doesn't alter the fact that the tax rate is still higher.

[Zalatix]

49. Seriously, you cannot read. The effective tax rate is far lower than 35%.

We have corporations here that pay ZERO taxes. Bank of America, anyone?

At this point I am not even sure you can read these articles, but let's try again.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/09/corporate-tax-rates_n_1413268.html

Instead of giving money to the government, it turns out more than a few U.S. companies are actually making money off their income taxes.

In a recent report by the Citizens for Tax Justice (CTJ) and the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, 26 of 30 Fortune 500 companies examined had negative income tax rates on profits made in the U.S. between 2008 and 2011 (h/t Think Progress).

The findings may seem contradictory with recent news that the U.S. has the highest corporate tax rate among developed nations at 39.2 percent. But due to loopholes in the tax code and federal tax subsidies, very few companies actually end up paying the full "statutory" rate.

As it stands now, the actual tax rate corporations pay, called the "effective" tax rate, is at 12.1 percent of profits, the lowest level it's been since 1972, Think Progress reports. Likewise, tax revenue as a percentage of gross domestic product is at lows not seen since the 1940s, according to CTJ.

[Spider Jerusalem]

51. Sure, I can read them

the effective tax rate is an irrelevancy, though. The top-line statutory tax rate is still the highest in the world.

[Zalatix]

54. The effective tax rate is an irrelevancy?!!! Hahahahahahahaha!!! Seriously?!

Tell that bullshit to Bank of America, which made BILLIONS and actually got money BACK from Uncle Sam.

Explain how this is irrelevant:

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/04/09/460519/major-corporations-no-taxes-four-year/

Last year, Citizens for Tax Justice found that 30 major corporations had made billions of dollars in profits while paying no federal income tax between 2008 and 2010. Today, CTJ updated that report to reflect the 2011 tax bill of those 30 companies, and 26 of them have still managed to pay absolutely nothing over that four year period:
– 26 of the 30 companies continued to enjoy negative federal income tax rates. That means they still made more money after tax than before tax over the four years!
– Of the remaining four companies, three paid four year effective tax rates of less than 4 percent
(specifically, 0.2%, 2.0% and 3.8%). One company paid a 2008-11 tax rate of 10.9 percent.
– In total, 2008-11 federal income taxes for the 30 companies remained negative, despite $205 billion in pretax U.S. profits. Overall, they enjoyed an average effective federal income tax rate of –3.1 percent over the four years.

Irrelevant, eh?

[Romulox]

75. LOL. What a silly set of posts. nt

[Zalatix]

21. Americans being excluded from the global labor market is good news?

[Sea-Dog]

22. boo hoo

you arent excluded

[Zalatix]

30. Really? With a trade deficit of $40 billion per month it's quite obvious that

you don't know what you're talking about.

[Romulox]

23. He's not for real. It's too over-the-top. nt

[mmonk]

18. Make it so these products cannot be sold in the US without a tariff.

[Recursion]

73. Farmers are too politically important for that

A lot of our trade deals are driven by the fact that American farmers really like to be able to sell stuff overseas.

[Nye Bevan]

28. Don't most multinationals emply people in many different countries?

Not sure what the issue is here.

[Zalatix]

32. They rarely hire in America, though. Look at our trade deficit. That says it all.

[muriel_volestrangler]

82. They hired 19,500 in the past 3 years or so

See the link I already gave you: 19,500 U.S. jobs added since 2008

And by comparing 2 10-K forms, we see that their worldwide employment grew from 35,100 (full-time equivalent) employees in Sept 2008 to 63,300 in Sept 2011. So, in approximately the same period, of 28,800 worldwide jobs added. So we see that the job growth was about 2/3rds inside the USA.
http://www.wikinvest.com/stock/Apple_%28AAPL%29/Filing/10-K/2008/F1303684
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/320193/000119312511282113/d220209d10k.htm

So, again, why are you so pissed off at some new jobs in Ireland?

[tammywammy]

38. Yes, that's why they're a multinational company.

There are various ways a company does it, but they tend to have workers in a variety of countries. The Boeing 787 is a good example of a company using resources in a variety of countries for an end product.

[Zalatix]

50. Multinational companies tend to lay off American workers and hire abroad.

And we don't call that discrimination? Really?

[tammywammy]

52. Where in my post did I even use the word "discrimination"?

Maybe you meant to reply to someone else.

[Zalatix]

55. My point is that free traders would never even USE the word 'discrimination'

even though it clearly describes what is going on here.

However, I am not accusing YOU of being a free trader. I'm just pointing out what's going on.

[TheFarseer]

53. "Well, that's the global market"

We shouldn't do anything because the invisible hand of the market will take care of it and besides, we need to be fair to the people in Ireland, China, India, Mexico whatever crappy country they're paying 50 cents an hour to workers.

I'm sick of this shit. It's our government's job to be our advocate in the global market place, to pass laws that slant the playing field for us because every other country is trying to slant the playing field in their favor and our dumb ass government is being paid in campaign contributions to look the other way while everyone else eats our lunch. If NO ONE is going to be our advocate then we're screwed. It's like a criminal case and you don't have a lawyer. We've got to get the jobs back before we wake up and we're living in Mexico North.

[Recursion]

74. Plenty of laws are slanted in our favor. Agriculture and intellectual property, for instance

And, for that matter, if you like buying inexpensive stuff the trade laws are slanted in your favor.

[Recursion]

72. OK, what law change would you seek to keep this from happening?

Trade agreements are governments' attempts to manage what technology is doing to the world economy. They're the result, not the cause.

[Romulox]

76. LOL. Now we can't control trade. It just IS! nt

[Recursion]

77. Independent monetary policy, a stable currency, control of capital flow. Pick any 2.

We can "control trade" pretty easily, it just either wrecks our currency's value or takes away our control of the money supply.

Factories were moving to Mexico long before NAFTA; all NAFTA did was make sure our farmers got something out of the deal.

[Romulox]

79. We have a *fiat* currency (most recently having printed TRILLIONS to give to the banks.)

re: "stable currency".

[WinniSkipper]

84. Small Business Exports

Hi Zalatix

I'll preface this with I do not think the way to future financial success is to block ourselves off, but rather to export more. We can put up walls upon walls, that's not going to stop the rest of the world's economy from seeking out resources. So you can yell at me about that right off the bat.

China's middle class is growing (estimated now at I think 200M people). Ditto India. I'm not going to approach this from a "cheap labor" side of manufacturing. That battle is lost. In the current global economy, you are not going to "force" those jobs back here.

However, there are huge markets that are becoming available to Small Businesses. Yes, our purchasing power on a global scale is not what it once was. But, neither are these emerging markets. Those are higher, and are continuing higher, and will continue to go higher. Is that at the expense of America? Yes. After all - that is sort of the basis of the argument here - more manufacturing oversees means more purchasing power there. And less here. So - we need to sell there.

We will survive, and expand, by going after new markets. Small Business makes up a huge percentage of the jobs here in the US. They are also the ones who would benefit the most by easier access to exports, better education about the process, and better help from the government to get their products oversees.

We live in a new world. A guy who owns a manufacturing plant in the middle of Kansas can sell to someone in Prague at the click of a mouse. However - he does not have the same access to resources that a huge Fortune 500 company has to get his product there. And I don't mean just the shipping. Customs, duties, etc etc. The customers are there.

The way to get us back to where we want to be financially is level the playing field more. We cannot have trade with countries that have no money to buy our goods. And we cannot survive on only America as a market. Proof of that is the current situation we are in

[Elwood P Dowd]

86. I had a small business for 30 years before retiring.

Sold mostly retail but also a small mail order eBay business moving discontinued and trade-in used
products. We were at a major disadvantage exporting products to most countries. When selling an item to someone in Germany there would be a 6% tariff along with a 25-30% VAT. An item that costs $1,000.00 was now over $1,300.00. A competing product made in Germany and shipped to the USA would only have a 2% tariff and no VAT -- huge difference in price. It's like this with most of our trading partners. Had similar situations with products shipped to The Netherlands, France, and China. Also, the Germans and these other countries subsidize their own manufacturing to get around the VAT and make their products much more attractive than US products with their high import costs.

None of our so called "Free Trade" agreements even addressed the VAT tricks these countries use. Of course they also ignored labor, product safety, and environmental laws in many countries that put us at a disadvantage.

[Zalatix]

89. It is impossible to increase our exports. We can force jobs back here, though.

If we place tariffs high enough it will stop imports and force goods to be made here.

Plus, it is impossible to increase our exports. The simple fact is we will always be beaten out by China when it comes to price. It's as simple as that. You will not sell anything to Prague simply for one reason: because a business owner in China can do what you do, cheaper.