Globalist leftists?

You mean like how much you pay when buying stuff from overseas? Do you know what that does? It adds a price to goods made in the united states so that it's much more difficult to compete with locally manufactured products. In other words, Australia doesn't have a problem playing the protectionist game.

and now we will probably match that tariff because you don't want to play fair. Don't worry, I think we can do without vegemite.

 

How can "globalist", one worlders be against globalism? Isn't that a contradiction?

Leftists believe we're all global citizens and they want one world government. But the street protests (burned cop cars, broken store windows) are against "globalism".

I don't understand this.

 

So you are fine with paying more for all your TV's and washing machines etc etc etc. All of that cost will be passed along the line as people will either do without other things so sales go down and per item prices rise

This will also impact clothings and shoes etc

Prepared to see 90% of your pay go in just putting food on the table?

 

????? Your kidding me right? Looked at a map lately? Seen how close Aus is to SE Asia? They can just about float the goods over on balsam rafts to here!! We have been flooded more than you - and been working on the issue far far longer. THAT is why we know that protectionism DOES NOT WORK

A) It is not just white goods but clothing shoes, steel to MAKE stuff with etc
B) per price goes up - consumer buying goes down - causing sales people to increase prices further so there can be SOME profit.

But do you honestly think you can make goods as cheaply as China without paying the price China has? Low almost slave wages, few if any work place health and safety regulations, few if any environmental protections

Do you REALLY want to walk around your cities wearing masks because air quality is so poor?

 

• It could be that since their progressive lost, they figure why not go full on socialist & forget the mealy mouthed pretending, since it didn't work, anyway.
• It could be that they figure a long term strategy of constant whining, blubbering, & bawling will wear the middle class out, & we will finally give in & let them have their way.
• It could be that they have the fantasy that a popular uprising, with the proletariat joining them with sickles & hammers, will overturn what they have not been able to accept.
• It could be they are drug addled fools, who cannot reason or deal with reality, but are mere puppets for the globalist elites.
• It could be they hope that other globalist worshippers will rally behind them (or preferably, before them, so they get shot & we can run away!)
• Or, it could be that they are just idiots. ..Stupid, indoctrinated idiots with no minds of their own, but only a collective brain run by some string puller.

 

I guess we'll find out for ourselves.

Of course prices will go up. There's no way we can compete with the Chinese when it comes to manufacturing. The demand will still be there, and that is going to result in those things being manufactured in the states again.

In the end, yes, we voted for protectionism when we voted for Trump. We will just have to see how that goes.

 

Well, even here it's like they are coming right out and saying that globalization is going to happen, and there's nothing we can do about it. Before, it wasn't that honest and we just got told the current date "It's 2016, not 1950!" as if we're trying to swim against a relentless inevitable current towards... progress.

Now it's straight up embracing the "New World Order" stuff that used to be laughed at as conspiracy theory stuff.

Is your idea that they have given up on mealy mouthed pretending correct? That's a possibility, but it opens the door to why were they pretending before Trump's inaugural address? Or maybe not pretending so much as hiding in the shadows of ambiguity. "I'm a progressive" has now turned into "I'm a globalist". And yeah, it does answer many questions I've had concerning the border and wanting to get into all of these dangerous alliances with other countries. We were actually told prior to this recent spate of honesty that Obama was the deportation president.

Or it could be a knee-jerk reaction to anything from the other team. If Trump wants the borders closed, they want them open. If Trump wants tariffs, they don't want tariffs (the first tax in a long long time they've been against). If Trump wants to make America great again, they want to make it not great again.

Maybe we can try a bit of reverse psychology here. Trump can say "Raise the taxes on the rich, and free college for all!" and see what happens then.

 

It won't be as bad as you are predicting, although it could be rough for awhile. For one thing, many previously willing workers have been ruined by ridiculously lengthy unemployment payments--but eventually everyone that's able will be pulling their weight again and contributing to the economy.

Additionally, what it does cost will be a small price for our security--and one which right now we are expending on excessive military interventions. The UN should be handling such things as fishing rights of the smaller nations against affluent countries trawling the sea floors and destroying breeding grounds for the fish. We should continue to support such actions, but we should not spearhead them.

 

A strong economy is a national security objective - I do agree with that part.

But, reducing our trade with other nations is not a direction toward a strong economy.

Far too many corporations depend on export business. In fact, large numbers are selling more product internationally than they are selling in the US.

Cutting our international business to make us stronger is just not the way economies work.

 

We should never have weakened ourselves by exporting so much business in the first place. Thank God we at least had the good sense to keep much of our heavy military industry, but even that was beginning to be at risk.

If, God forbid, we ever had to defend ourselves in a war with a trade partner, it would not be convenient to still attempt to import, for example, steel from them.

 

We didn't weaken ourselves. And, as a company builds an export business it becomes necessary to move some components to countries we sell to.

Notice that Toyota moved manufacturing TO THE USA!!! There were reasons they needed to do that. Our corporations face the same issues as Toyota did.

They didn't move manufacturing to the USA to take advantage of cheap labor.


BTW, manufacturing PRODUCT in the US is growing. It is employment that isn't. Trump sold the idea employment slowed due to moving business - but that isn't the case. Workers are struggling because they can't compete with automation, because smashing unions has led to a far wider margin between worker pay and corporate profit, to worse retirement, to less job security, etc.

Blocking trade is a SERIOUS mistake.

What we need to do is to learn to compete.

 

What are you suggesting with that?

We have significant need for all sorts of stuff from all over the world.

Our direction needs to move toward one of not needing to conquer people in order to resolve issues.

The lesson of SKorea, Vietnam, Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Iran, Israel, Eastern Europe (where we broke agreements with Russia), etc., is that war and aggression isn't actually a solution. Did overthrowing Iran help? Did tens of thousands of deaths in Vietnam solve anything? etc.

I know how absolutely fabulous our technology can be and how addictive it is. And, target practice just doesn't solve the itch.

But, our relationship with the rest of the world can not be based on how fast we can kill people.

 

Exactly why your comparison is not applicable. The US corporation move manufacturing to China and Mexico for one reason only - to take advantage of cheap labor.

How do you compete against currency manipulation and $0.5/hr cheap foreign labor in a country with no labor laws, no safety regulations and no environmental protection? Please be as specific as you'd like.

 

Those fine sentiments will not protect us from aggressors. Only self sufficiency and an able population can do that.

 

If we had not in many ways been self sufficient going into WWII the outcome could have been substantially different.

We were not the aggressors in that war.

It is a false economy to build dependence in a nation. The abilities of its workers are in addition a part of its capitol as well as its security.

What do you feel will be the end result of automation when those machines break down? Who will repair them?

Even now I am having difficulties getting a large corporation to recognize that they have a serious production or distribution problem with one of their better products. It could be a problem somewhere in the middle of complex machinery that no employee in the company any longer has any clue how to access or repair. It's a case of a massive buyout of other companies, including the one that makes my product, and they can't seem to get a grasp on what to do to correct the problem. My suspicion is that key employees were let go to "cost cut", at the expense of product quality. Meanwhile, defective product remains on the shelves to be purchased by consumers who have need of a usable product.

To compound the problem, the takeover company is a foreign one.

 

Rubbish. Trade only produces winners and losers, if we are talking about the non elites. You cannot trade your way to prosperity. You obtain the optimum prosperity by making what you consume. For if we become prosperous by running trade surpluses, that surplus represents jobs taken from the nation you run the surplus with. Deficits represent jobs that could be here making the goods the deficit represents.

 

If we had not in many ways been self sufficient going into WWII the outcome could have been substantially different.

We were not the aggressors in that war.

It is a false economy to build dependence in a nation. The abilities of its workers are in addition a part of its capitol as well as its security.

What do you feel will be the end result of automation when those machines break down? Who will repair them?

Even now I am having difficulties getting a large corporation to recognize that they have a serious production or distribution problem with one of their better products. It could be a problem somewhere in the middle of complex machinery that no employee in the company any longer has any clue how to access or repair. It's a case of a massive buyout of other companies, including the one that makes my product, and they can't seem to get a grasp on what to do to correct the problem. My suspicion is that key employees were let go to "cost cut", at the expense of product quality. Meanwhile, defective product remains on the shelves to be purchased by consumers who have need of a usable product.

To compound the problem, the takeover company is a foreign one.

 

Name me one prosperous nation with a protectionist economy

 

Protectionism was in the 99th percentile for 10k years up until 1942. Whether bad or good. Whether nations flourished or perished.

This dishonest intellectualism is on the list of the 100 things proving the left is dead, they just haven't realize it yet.

Seriously, jump on a life boat. Float independent until new things start popping up that are worth playing a part in.

 

China?

 

The biggest way to shoot them down. The fact the WTO keeps tariffs on any nation they want to grow dictates the truth in you need tariffs to grow. Their own actions prove that narrative a lie.

I just like to figure out different ways to argue their 5-10 lines for free trade. They don't ever think of anything new. It is the only way to keep the debate interesting.

 

China is definitely not a protectionist economy, they have been improving their living conditions (though they're still not first world status) since they started moving their economy more in the direction of Hong Kong's economy. They have a free trade agreement with over 20 countries, a protectionist economy would have 0 free trade agreements.

I would actually argue that the concept for Capitalism and free trade began being put in practice around the 16th century. Granted, it took many generation for it to become the norm.. but in that time mankind has been able to make its greatest strides. Global poverty is at an all time low, and just take a look at Europe before and after they opened themselves up to free trade. Before free trade people were leaving Europe for America, today Europe has evolved into a prospering economic powerhouse

 

[video=youtube;JzmxQOonnGE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JzmxQOonnGE[/video]

 

Much of our remaining prosperity stems from the days, subsequent to the American Revolution, when we actually protected our national industries. In fact, a core portion of the reason for revolting against England in the first place was their determination to use their sop to exploit America in the same manner as their other colonies--by keeping America as a source of raw materials that was dependent on England for finished products. Imposing a tax on the tea America imported via England was just frosting on the cake to the English--but it was the straw that broke the camel's back to Americans, who chose that as the isssue to attack in the famous Boston Tea Party.

 

Actually, the reason we rebelled against the east India company was because of it's monoply on trade. Goods that were not a product of the company often came with additional taxes, which is exactly what the Boston tea party was about. Basically, the exact opposite of what you described is true, it was the tax on trade from resources outside of the motherland that we were rebelling against

but there's an easy way to settle this discussion.. name one prosperous country with a protectionist economy. I can name you several prospering countries whose economies are well plugged into international trade. I can name city states and former third world countries who have prospered through trade. There are no first world countries with protectionist economies, free trade is an essential part of a prospering economy.