|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Nov 29, 2006 19:38:51 GMT -6
Those who advocate pro-free trade policies often justify their position by stating a desire to uplift the poor in foreign countries. Not only do I oppose that position on national interest grounds, I question the benefits to 3rd world countries. Lack of benefit to 3rd-world countries is a point I'd like to make mainly with "liberals."
Outsourcing does NOT raise aggregate global wages. In fact, outsourcing labor costs to a low-wage country REDUCES global labor wages and income. If a $100/day American laborer is substituted for by $2/day foreign laborer, it reduces aggregate global labor income. Global labor income is what buys production and creates demand. Outsourcing reduces aggregate global labor income, thus reducing total consumer spending world wide. American workers lose income and buying power with outsourcing. That loss is NOT made up for by increase in foreign wages. This is just plain common sense. It's impossible for labor cost reductions to make up for wage losses.
If American workers can't buy America's production, then foreign workers need to pick up the slack. Does anyone really think that's possible? Can $2/day foreign workers make up for the buying power lost by $100/day American workers? That's $98/day/worker in lost labor income per worker. It would take the labor income of 50 $2/day workers to make up for the American labor income loss. Does this seem likely, or even possible?
The only "benefit" is the short-term cost reduction for outsourcing American producers, with a slight decrease in price for American consumers. This becomes a net loss to American workers and consumers.
Global labor competition causes aggregate global labor income to drop. It increases the labor supply available to American corporations, and decreases workers' bargaining power. This is simple supply and demand. If the supply of labor increases 100-fold, it will drive the "price" of labor down. Labor "price" reduction means labor "wage" reduction. Thus, the end result will be a dramatic reduction in American labor income with a smaller, but significant, reduction in global wages as well.
Outsourcing and globalization don't "raise" anybody up. They drag all workers down. Jobs will go to the most impoverished workers, and employers won't pay them a penny more than they have to. We cannot enforce minimum wage laws, or other worker protections in foreign countries. More importantly, however, is that Corporate America doesn't want to enforce minimum wage laws in foreign countries. Such enforcement would increase the price of their exploited foreign labor. The poorer the worker, the more willingly they accept poverty-level wages. Their impoverishment is Corporate America's gain. So Corporate America always opposes minimum wage requirements and worker protections in free trade agreements. Again, it's not the foreign country negotiators who oppose labor protections being imposed upon them. It is the American Corporate investors who oppose such laws. Because it is the American Corporate investors whose profits will be reduced by such laws.
Let's not forget that someone needs to buy the goods produced. Who will buy goods if American worker wages sink to the level of their enslaved foreign counterparts? People can't purchase goods without income. And very low income means very few goods purchased. Demand cannot be created out of thin air. Consumers must have sufficient income to create that demand. Without demand, there is no need for production, and no need to hire workers. (Though the recent decline in wage-financed consumer spending has been compensated for by increased borrowing, this is not a sustainable situation.)
The truth is that the entire world economy would collapse without the Demand created by American consumers. That demand is created by American income and borrowing. We're almost maxed out on borrowing at present. In addition, inflation-adjusted American wages have risen only slightly since 2001. The last thing the US (and the world) needs is a further stagnation in American wages. An American wage decline hurts the US, as well as the major exporting countries. If aggregate American labor & consumer income declines, so does our ability to buy foreign imports. Increasing American labor competition with enslaved foreign workers is worsening this wage decline. It's not only in our best interests to keep jobs in the US, it's to the advantage of all countries that export to us. Americans need income to buy foreign goods.
"Opening up markets" sounds like a good idea. But it's a smokescreen. It's not the real motivation behind "free" trade agreements. The real motivation is "opening up" the American labor market to competition with foreign slave-labor. Bush and his NeoCon-Artist supporters know this. But they hope no one else will. Many of us do, however. Hopefully we can make others see this as well.
_________________
|
|
|
Post by lc on Nov 29, 2006 22:30:22 GMT -6
liar
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Nov 30, 2006 5:53:13 GMT -6
outsourcing definitely reduces aggregate global wages but it increases aggregate global income, global consumption, global production and global GDP. It employs the poorest people at lower wages but in ever increasing numbers. It doesn't employ any more workers than it would if those same jobs stayed in the United States, as it is the demand for production that creates jobs. However, it does employ a higher fraction of the world's workers at a lower income, as it replaces American workers with lower paid foreign workers. With the same number of workers and a lower average wage, there's a reduction in aggregate world labor income. Since aggregate wages decline, it reduces labor-consumer spending, and the production demand it creates. Reduced production demand = Reduced labor demand. Reduced aggregate labor demand reduces both employment AND wages. The result is less employed workers and a lower wage for those who are employed. Absolutely wrong. Total world wealth will be reduced if higher paid American workers are replaced with lower paid foreign workers because it reduces aggregate global consumer/labor income and spending. If American wages decline to the level of those of the lowest paid workers in the world, the world will become poorer. American worker wealth will simply be transferred into profits for the multinational corporations, with a smaller amount transferred to poorer workers in 3rd world countries. But this transfer will be severely limited, because as global labor income and spending power declines from lost American labor income, so will aggregate global spending and production demand, so will labor demand, and so will the production of wealth. The increased income received by the Global Corporatists (from the labor cost reduction) is not spent at the same rate as it would have been by displaced American workers. Whereas the average propensity to consume for workers might be 0.75 to 1.0, the propensity to consume is much smaller as you go up the income ladder. The highest earners devote only a small fraction of their income to consumption spending. The result is that as income is shifted upward to the more affluent, a smaller fraction of that income is spent. This results in less consumer spending, even if there was no change in total global income. However, this very change in the fraction spent reduces production demand and the demand for workers to provide production. Thus the upward transfer of wealth (resulting from outsourcing-induced labor cost reductions), causes aggregate labor-consumer income to fall. Again, this is due to the reduced demand for goods production, which drops both employment and wages.
|
|
|
Post by graybeard on Dec 1, 2006 8:47:51 GMT -6
Mechanization and automation of everything from farming to cremation has made people more productive. It appears there is a surplus of available labor in the world. I read once that if labor were spread equally, it would be about 12 hours a week. The huge surplus of labor depresses wages for all. How do we cope with that?
GB
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Dec 1, 2006 17:09:48 GMT -6
Graybeard,
If wages increased, it would increase spending power, and increase aggregate demand for production. Thus, any surplus would be reduced by increased purchasing by consumers with more money to spend.
According to standard economic theory, consumer "wants" are unlimited. However, the ability to fulfill those wants is not. The means to fulfill those wants, or consumer spending power, is what limits consumer demand.
Consumer "wants," combined with the means to fulfill those wants, is what creates demand. Thus, increasing consumer income increases aggregate demand.
Increasing consumer spending power sufficiently reduces surpluses, because it enables consumers to purchase more production, making less of it surplus.
|
|
|
Post by graybeard on Dec 2, 2006 8:15:11 GMT -6
The price of anything falls to the level of the dumbest competitor.
With such a huge surplus of labor as we have today, what can be done, either by governments, or by corporates, to increase wages? Requiring that imports be the product of fair labor is a start; what else?
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Dec 3, 2006 4:34:52 GMT -6
Graybeard,
I'm assuming you're including establishment (and enforcement) of realistic and fair minimum wage laws in the countries we trade with.
We should also eliminate any and all subsidization of American industry that sets up production facilities in foreign countries, especially those that are actively reducing the size of their U.S. labor force.
More specifically, we need to eliminate certain agencies that facilitate outsourcing and loss of American jobs. We need to eliminate the Agency for International Development (A.I.D.), which is an organization who's sole purpose is to encourage American business to move offshore. (AID is taxpayer funded.) We need to eliminate the OPIC (Overseas Private Investment Corporation), which risks taxpayers' money so that Corporations can invest overseas. We need to eliminate the Foreign Investment Tax Credit, which provides tax breaks for American multinationals who invest in foreign countries, instead of this country.
We need to completely eliminate the President's "fast-track" trade authority. And I don't mean simply not renew it. We need to eliminate it permanently from statute. We need to return control of trade policy to Congress, and legislate against any further abdication of Congress's authority over trade policy. It is Congress's right and duty to regulate commerce, not the President's. And it is Congress's duty to block any and all trade bills that put American workers at a disadvantage, in any way. Again, Congress's mission is to serve all the people, not just their rich Corporate campaign contributors.
We need to withdraw from the WTO, GATT, NAFTA, & CAFTA. All have cost us American jobs and labor income. The last time it came to a vote, over 80 House members voted for withdrawal from the WTO. That's nowhere near enough votes, but the number is increasing every time it's voted on.
All of these measure should increase American wages, by keeping more jobs in the United States. Trade agreements with fair minimum wage laws should result in increases in the wages of workers in 3rd world countries. Such a measure would cause less American jobs to be lost through wage arbitrage, and truly increase the purchasing power of workers in foreign countries that we have treaties with.
|
|
|
Post by blueneck on Dec 3, 2006 13:30:38 GMT -6
Excellent recommendations all, Unlawflcombtnt
|
|
|
Post by LibSlayer on Dec 22, 2006 19:57:06 GMT -6
Unlawful,
You said that moving jobs to low wage paying economies lowers the overall world wealth will be reduced and overall wages will be reduced.
This is simply not true. Those in the low wage paying economies are being paid HIGHER wages than if they weren't doing the offshored American job.
Second American nominal wages have been steadily increasing while all this offshoring is going on.
You just do not have a good grasp of economics and don't understand that what you call offshoring is just another name for foreign trade, and there is absolutely no doubt that foreign trade is good for an economy.
|
|
|
Post by blueneck on Dec 22, 2006 20:19:33 GMT -6
You might want to check your facts there Libslayer. Adjusted for inflation real wages for those earning under six figures (which accounts for all working and most of the middle class) are down 3% while those earning over $150,000 (upper 5%) have seen increases of 20% which skews the number. The middle class is seeing the effects of the bifurcated economy or "middle class squeeze" as its more commonly known as their costs for food, fuel, utilities, local taxes, education, medical care all continue to rise while the wages stagnate.
Globalization has NOT improved the living conditions of Mexicans for example who still live in relative penury despite having a good chunk of former US manufacturing jobs, and the record number of illegals coming over the border puts the lie to the rising tide floating all boats. Just why should the American middle class finance the rise of living stds for other countries anyway? this is just plain absurd. Chinese factory workers in many cases are worse off than if they had remained on the farm.
The record trade deficits suggest otherwise. Foreign trade is good if its fair trade that benefits all parties involved, not so good when one trading partner gets it in the shorts.
Exactly how is freely giving away technology, jobs and infrastructure good for long term economic health and national security?
|
|
|
Post by Libslayer on Dec 22, 2006 21:05:55 GMT -6
"You might want to check your facts there Libslayer. Adjusted for inflation real wages for those earning under six figures"
You might want to read what I said, I said NOMINAL wages. Real wages has nothing to do with this argument.
"The middle class is seeing the effects of the bifurcated economy or "middle class squeeze" as its more commonly known as their costs for food, fuel, utilities, local taxes, education, medical care all continue to rise while the wages stagnate."
They are seeing the affects of INFLATION. Wages are not stagnat, business is steadily increasing wages
"Chinese factory workers in many cases are worse off than if they had remained on the farm. "
No, they are not, they are voluntarily leaving the farms to go into the factories because it is easier work and better pay, it is a better life, just as it was for Western workers who left the farms and went to the factories.
"The record trade deficits suggest otherwise."
The trade deficit has nothing to do with the benefits of foreign trade.
|
|
|
Post by blueneck on Dec 22, 2006 22:15:50 GMT -6
It certainly does, explain how it doesn't
what businesses are doing any more than minimal cost of living increases that barely keep up with inflation for any one else but the CEOs??? Manufacturers, airline workers, service workers all have had stagnate or declining wages for at least the last 6 years, again plenty of documentation on this, look it up.
You are right - nothing to do with the benefits of trade, because its a negative effect of free trade, duh
|
|
|
Post by LibSlayer on Dec 22, 2006 22:48:01 GMT -6
"It certainly does, explain how it doesn't"
It certainly does not. Unlawful says outsourcing jobs to low wage countries decreases wages here, that Americans are losing high paying jobs and taking low paying jobs. This is simply not true. The fact that what businesses are paying American's, nominal wages, is going up proves that Americans are taking higher paying jobs.
Real wages reflects how inflation affects the BUYING POWER of those wages, it does not reflect that they are being paid less.
"what businesses are doing any more than minimal cost of living increases that barely keep up with inflation"
That is simply not the case, wages have been steadily climbing, there is no decline in the increase.
"You are right - nothing to do with the benefits of trade, because its a negative effect of free trade, duh"
The trade deficit has nothing to do with the benefits of free trade, nor is it a negative effect of free trade, it is a negative effect of a LACK of free trade with those we trade with.
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Dec 22, 2006 23:56:45 GMT -6
Unlawful says outsourcing jobs to low wage countries decreases wages here, that Americans are losing high paying jobs and taking low paying jobs. This is simply not true. The fact that what businesses are paying American's, nominal wages, is going up proves that Americans are taking higher paying jobs. It doesn't prove anything of the sort. Nominal wages are going up largely because of inflation, not because the actual real wages of American workers are increasing. In fact, "real" wages, which are the true measure of the buying power of wages, are at the same level they were in November of 2003. If wages increase less than inflation, it indicates workers are being paid less if measured in buying power, and that their wages have increased exclusively due to inflation. Wrong, completely and unequivocally. Even average real wages have increased very little under Bush, not to mention no increase at all in median real wages. In fact, during Clinton's last 5 years, real average hourly wages increased 50 cents per hour. During Bush's first 5 years, real wages increased only 13 cents per hour. This can be seen below in the following charts. BLS Real Hourly WagesBLS Real Weekly Wages The trade deficit is because our current "free" trade policies are worsening our trade situation, not improving it. It is a "negative" effect of the "negative" trade policies of this "negative" IQ administration.
|
|
|
Post by LibSlayer on Dec 23, 2006 9:19:45 GMT -6
"It doesn't prove anything of the sort. Nominal wages are going up largely because of inflation, not because the actual real wages of American workers are increasing. In fact, "real" wages, which are the true measure of the buying power of wages, are at the same level they were in November of 2003. "
WHAT DON'T YOU GET? Unlawful says that outsourcing is sending good paying jobs overseas and being replaced with low paying jobs. The FACT that NOMINAL wages are increasing proves this wrong.
And no, nominal wages are not incrasing because of inflation, it is the other way around, increasing wages increases inflation.
"If wages increase less than inflation, it indicates workers are being paid less "
It mean inflation is increasing faster than wage growth. It doesn't mean they are taking lower paying jobs as unlawful (and you) claim.
"Wrong, completely and unequivocally. Even average real wages have increased very little under Bush, not to mention no increase at all in mean wages. In fact, during Clinton's last 5 years, real average hourly wages increased 50 cents per hour. During Bush's first 5 years, real wages increased only 13 cents per hour. This can be seen below in the following charts"
As I said, real wages has nothing to do with the claim that oursourcing means Americans are taking lower paying jobs.
"The trade deficit is because our current "free" trade policies are worsening our trade situation,"
The trade deficit is due to other countries protectionists policies which harms THEIR people, not the US.
|
|
rdf
Contributor
Posts: 27
|
Post by rdf on Dec 23, 2006 10:14:32 GMT -6
Averages are a very bad way to measure social conditions, especially in a society as out of balance as is the US.
If I make one dollar and Bill Gates makes one billion our average is half a billion (plus 50 cents) each. If I double my earnings to two dollars the average is now half a billion (plus a dollar) each. In this case I experienced a 100% increase while the average changed insignificantly.
We live in a society that John Edwards calls the "two Americas". Broadly speaking this is the bottom 80% and the top 20%. The bottom has seen their effective earnings stagnate or in some cases decline. The top has seen theirs zoom upward with the percentage increase being greatest for the top 1%, and 0.1%.
To use my example, I continue to make one dollar but Gates gets two billion. The average doubles, but I'm not any better off.
Two make things even worse most of the rise in wealth is because of bubbles in the stock and real estate markets. The utility of these assets hasn't changed, just the price. Bubbles like this usually lead to economic disasters. Apparently the dot com bust has not taught us anything yet.
|
|
|
Post by blueneck on Dec 23, 2006 13:42:43 GMT -6
Good points rdf - clearly you understand what is going on, unlike our idealogue freind the Libslayer who too blinded by his talking to points to see the bigger picture of whats really happening.
I find his handle a bit ironic as its the ultra libs in conjunction with the neo - conservatives (who themselves were the hawkish liberals that left the democratic party and joined the republicans over Vietnam) that are pushing this crazy notion of open borders and "free" trade.
|
|
|
Post by LibSlayer on Dec 23, 2006 16:57:57 GMT -6
"especially in a society as out of balance as is the US."
The US isn't out of balance.
"If I make one dollar and Bill Gates makes one billion our average is half a billion (plus 50 cents) each. If I double my earnings to two dollars the average is now half a billion (plus a dollar) each. In this case I experienced a 100% increase while the average changed insignificantly."
Except for the fact that he and all the other salary earners are not included in the WAGES calculation that shows a steady increase in wages.
Since 2000 the ration of CEO to worker salary has DECLINED.
"We live in a society that John Edwards calls the "two Americas". "
Populist nonsense for all those who have failed and are jealous of other's success.
"Good points rdf - clearly you understand what is going on, unlike our idealogue freind the Libslayer who too blinded by his talking to points to see the bigger picture of whats really happening."
It is you who do not understand even basic economics.
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Dec 24, 2006 13:25:34 GMT -6
The US isn't out of balance. Society certainly is out of balance. The gap between the rich and the poor is getting larger. CEO pay, though it may be slightly less than it was several years ago, is still over 300 times that of the average workers pay. In 1980 it was 40 times the average workers pay. This is clearly a worsening balance. The worst balance, however, is that between Corporate profits, production, and workers wages. Corporate profits are at record levels under Bush. Productivity has also increased greatly under Bush. Yet "real" wages have increased very little. In fact, the wage productivity gap, which is a measure of the gap between the goods produced by workers vs. the wages of those workers has been steadily declining. This creates a situation where workers' ability to buy the goods produced is not keeping up with their ability to purchase those goods. A large part of this is attributable to outsourcing. Higher paid American workers are replaced by foreign workers making a fraction as much in wages. The foreign worker, of course, does not have the financial ability to buy American production, since he's paid semi-slave labor wages by Corporate America. Though a completely foreign made product doesn't contribute America's wage-productivity gap, a partially made foreign product does. If 90% of the labor costs are born by foreign workers, while 10% are incurred by American workers, and the product can still me considered "made in America," then this does increase the American wage-productivity gap. And this gap is being worsened by outsourcing part of the production process of an allegedly American-made product. It is the wage-productivity gap that causes Corporate profits to increase while American wages stagnate. Labor costs are reduced while product sales are maintained or increased. But this situation could never have occurred, had it not been for the massive credit expansion that put more spendable money in the pockets of American consumers, while wages declined. In other words, American consumer spending ability would've declined had spending been limited to wages alone. But that decline was compensated for by a massive increase in consumer credit and borrowing ability. The result is that the consumer "spending deficit" that should have occurred did not occur. It was completely compensated for by the increased ability to finance consumption with credit and loans. As a result, it obscured the true imbalance between wages and productivity. Below is a graph from Peter Morici's article on currency manipulation, that shows a comparison of real hourly wages vs. output per hour. Notice the how the gap between the 2 was at its narrowest in 1998, and then has worsened ever since. Though productivity continued to increase through 2004, real hourly wage growth grew much slower. In 2003, productivity growth increased over 4%, while wage growth increased less than 1/2%. In 2004, productivity growth increased 3%, while real wages actually declined 1/2%. This is the true nature of the imbalance. The increased amount of money going toward the Corporate profits, Corporate Management, and high income earners--- vs. the declining fraction of wealth going to American workers, the American middle class, and the lower 80% category of income earners.
|
|
|
Post by LibSlayer on Dec 24, 2006 14:27:08 GMT -6
"Society certainly is out of balance. The gap between the rich and the poor is getting larger. CEO pay, though it may be slightly less than it was several years ago, is still over 300 times that of the average workers pay. In 1980 it was 40 times the average workers pay. This is clearly a worsening balance" There is absolutely nothing wrong with it and is certainly does not suggest that society is out of balance. What CEO's are paid is decided by shareholders, it comes out of their pockets and if they want to pay them that much it is their business, and is certainly none of yours. Only with the shareholder's approval. "AP) Shareholders of Exxon Mobil Corp., whose last chief executive took home $147 million when he retired, overwhelmingly rejected resolutions to rein in compensation at the oil company's annual meeting on Wednesday" www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/05/31/ap/business/mainD8HV0UK00.shtml"The worst balance, however, is that between Corporate profits, production, and workers wages." There is no imbalance at all, corporation's profits belong to the shareholders, millions of them, almost 50% of American households. "A large part of this is attributable to outsourcing" If that were the case then nominal wages would be declining, yet they are steadily increasing. data.bls.gov/PDQ/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet?&series_id=CEU3000000006&series_id=CEU0500000006"It is the wage-productivity gap that causes Corporate profits to increase while American wages stagnate" Nominal wages have continued to increase even despite the outsourcing. As for real wages, that is a reflection of INFLATION reducing the buying power of the increased wages. Wages will stagnate during a recession and recovery, they did after the 1991 recession and 2001, and just as in the second half of the 90's wage growth has started to accelerate. data.bls.gov/PDQ/servlet/SurveyOutputServletAs for your wage productivity gap, rising wages increases inflation which reduces buying power which reduces the standard of living. Productivity increases increases the standard of living. "This is the true nature of the imbalance. The increased amount of money going toward the Corporate profits" Which goes to half of American households. "Corporate Management" Paid out of the SHAREHOLDER'S pockets. "This is the true nature of the imbalance. " There is no imbalance.
|
|
|
Post by LibSlayer on Dec 25, 2006 15:12:00 GMT -6
"Despite what Clinton actually said or did, he did not invade Iraq, nor did he ever even suggest doing so" Yes, he did, clinton supports Bush's decision to invade Iraq, for the very reason Bush said he was invading: 2004 "(CNN) -- Former President Clinton has revealed that he continues to support President Bush's decision to go to war in Iraq but chastised the administration over the abuses at Abu Ghraib prison." That's why I supported the Iraq thing. There was a lot of stuff unaccounted for," Clinton said in reference to Iraq and the fact that U.N. weapons inspectors left the country in 1998. "You couldn't responsibly ignore [the possibility that] a tyrant had these stocks," Clinton said. edition.cnn.com/2004/US/06/19/clinton.iraq/index.html"Clinton said Bush's first priority was to keep al Qaeda and other terrorist networks from obtaining "chemical and biological weapons or small amounts of fissile material" edition.cnn.com/2004/US/06/19/clinton.iraq/index.html
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Dec 27, 2006 22:11:22 GMT -6
"I have repeatedly defended President Bush against the left on Iraq, even though I think he should have waited until the U.N. inspections were over," Clinton said in a Time magazine interview that will hit newsstands Monday, a day before the publication of his book "My Life."
Pressed on whether the Iraq war was worth the cost to the United States, Clinton said he would not have undertaken the war until after U.N. chief weapons inspector Hans Blix "finished his job."
Clinton clearly states he would have waited until the UN inspections were over. And had Bush waited, no WMDs would have been found, and he'd have had no excuse for invading. Along with this reasoning, Clinton would have never invaded Iraq, because invasion was dependent on inspectors finding evidence of WMDs. Since WMDs were never found, Clinton would have never invaded.
The reason Bush invaded when he did is because he knew WMDs would never be found, but there was still doubt among the general public at the time. Bush didn't want to wait until the inspectors proved conclusively that there were no WMDs. So Bush launched the invasion before that could happen.
|
|
|
Post by blueneck on Dec 28, 2006 17:13:04 GMT -6
Interestingly it has come out that the late President Gerald Ford shared similar sentiments on going into Iraq with Bill Clinton.
Waiting for the inspectors to do their job is exactly what any level headed leader should have and would have done.
|
|
|
Post by LibSlayer on Jan 7, 2007 0:45:14 GMT -6
" I have repeatedly defended President Bush against the left on Iraq, even though I think he should have waited until the U.N. inspections were over," Clinton said in a Time magazine interview that will hit newsstands Monday, a day before the publication of his book "My Life." Pressed on whether the Iraq war was worth the cost to the United States, Clinton said he would not have undertaken the war until after U.N. chief weapons inspector Hans Blix "finished his job."Clinton clearly states he would have waited until the UN inspections were over. And had Bush waited, no WMDs would have been found, and he'd have had no excuse for invading. Along with this reasoning, Clinton would have never invaded Iraq, because invasion was dependent on inspectors finding evidence of WMDs. Since WMDs were never found, Clinton would have never invaded. The reason Bush invaded when he did is because he knew WMDs would never be found, but there was still doubt among the general public at the time. Bush didn't want to wait until the inspectors proved conclusively that there were no WMDs. So Bush launched the invasion before that could happen. Perhaps you didn't read what clinton said, he said he SUPPORTS Bush decision to invade but disagrees on the timing. And no the UN inspectors not finding WMD would not have changed the reason for invading, the UN inspectors were not looking for WMD, they were there to VERIFY that Saddam was in compliance with the terms of the cease fire and UN resolutions, we now know for a fact that he was not. The reason Bush invaded is completely irrelevant as to whether Saddam had WMD or not, it was the THREAT of terrorists getting WMD that was the impetus for invding and that threat was fully vindicated.
|
|
|
Post by LibSlayer on Jan 7, 2007 0:50:44 GMT -6
The truth is that the entire world economy would collapse without the Demand created by American consumers. That demand is created by American income and borrowing. No, the demand is created by investment of capital into R & D, developing new products and services and new ways of making existing goods cheaper, driving down the costs which increase demand for the goods. Capital is invested in new businesses that have new ideas for new products with little or no proof of any demand, only the HOPE there will be a demand for their new product or service.
|
|
|
Post by KK on Jan 7, 2007 11:15:50 GMT -6
fully vindicated? we had inspectors in place. If there were any threat of fundamentalist radicals getting their hands on WMD it woudl have come from the former soviet states. That was BY FAR a larger threat.
so now the reason is that terrorist org's would steal wmd from Iraq? BS. Its a hell of alot more likely that they would get technology via the Black Market in tajikistan or turkmenistan and that is the CIA's own assessment.
if you think that Hussein would ally himself with al qaeda to inflict a wmd blow on the US that is highly unlikely. he was brutal not stupid. the whole point of deterrents in the cold war was that using a weapon meant your own destruction. That still holds. He didnt use them in the Gulf War and didnt use them during this invasion becuase he fully understood the consequences.
If we hadnt invaded and he would have used them that would have been his last day in power and likely the end of Iraq.
The first goal of any govt is to remain in power. Hussein wouldnt have risked that position.
The overthrow was easy. Lake and the rest of the Clinton administration had a chance to use Talibani's forces in 1995 and chose not to support the coup even though Talibani made a significant incursion and sacked some of Saddams's forces.
The problem is what do you do afterwards. A small footprint, which is what Rummie wanted, leaves you with an inadequate force to provide security and move the economy forward. A large force accompanied by an outsourcing of infrastructure projects leaves you looking like an occupaying force.
The larger force probably would have been the better choice.
|
|
|
Post by LibSlayer on Jan 14, 2007 13:54:24 GMT -6
Yes, fully vindicated, the threat for which Bush invaded, and the threat for which Congress authroized force, was the threat that terrorists might get WMD from Iraq. It makes no difference how they might get the WMD, or which terrorist group among the dozens in the ME got them, nor does it matter whether Saddam allied himself with them or not. David Kay - testimony to Congress Jan 28, 2004 "It was a country that had the capability in weapons of mass destruction areas and in which terrorists, like ants to honey, were going after it. " thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?r108:S28JA4-0018:David Kay, Jan 2004: "In the marketplace of terrorism and of WMD, Iraq well could have been that supplier if the war had not intervened" www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4066462/Putin Says Russia Gave U.S. Intel on Iraq ASTANA, Kazakhstan (AP) - Russian President Vladimir Putin said Friday his government warned Washington that Saddam Hussein (news - bio) 's regime was preparing attacks in the United States and its interests abroad - an assertion that appears to bolster President Bush (website - news - bio) 's contention that Iraq was a threat www.wjla.com/news/stories/0604/153958.htmlHe said the information received by Russian intelligence suggested Iraq was planning attacks in the United States, "and beyond its borders on American military and civilian targets". He added: "It is one thing to have information that (Saddam) Hussein's regime was preparing acts of terrorism - we did have this information and we handed it over. news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3819057.stm
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Jan 14, 2007 15:28:03 GMT -6
Libslayer, I have to commend you on your research. However, I couldn't agree with you any less on your conclusions. (Also, I now have a separate heading for Iraq. It would be better if this discussion was continued in that section.) Here's the bulk (though not the entirety) of the David Kay interview you cited with Tom Brokaw from MSNBC: " David Kay: Exclusive interview Chemical, biological, nuclear programs ‘rudimentary’
By Tom Brokaw
Correspondent
Updated: 4:16 p.m. PT Jan 26, 2004
David Kay, who resigned last week as the chief U.S. weapons inspector in Iraq, now says he didn't find stockpiles of WMD — or evidence of a nuclear program well under way in Saddam Hussein's Iraq — and he blames it on a greatly flawed intelligence system and analysis.
When I met Dr. Kay in Baghdad last summer he showed me the bales of documents he was confident would lead to the weapons. But instead, he says, Iraqi scientists told him Saddam's WMD program was in chaos.
David Kay: They describe in Iraq that was really spinning into a vortex of corruption from the very top in which people were lying to Saddam, lying to each other for money; the graft and how much you could get out of the system rather than how much you could produce was a dominant issue....
TB: David, as you know the vice president of the United States and Secretary of State Powell say, “We still don’t know the end result. We could still find these weapons.”
DK: Well, Tom, let me explain how we came — how I came to a different conclusion. If there weren’t stockpiles of weapons, there must have been a production process which required plants, required people and would have produced documentation. But we have seen nothing that would indicate large-scale production.
TB: And no scientist who testified to that.
DK: No scientist, no documentation nor physical evidence of the production plants.
TB: Intelligence report says ... "Baghdad has chemical and biological weapons as well as missiles with range in excess of U.N. restrictions. If left unchecked it probably will have a nuclear weapon within this decade."
DK: Well, I think it’s got elements that we have certainly seen are true. The area that it’s probably more seriously wrong in is in the nuclear area.
TB: But as you know, the vice president and, to a lesser degree, the president of the United States, raised the nuclear threat as a reason that the United States had to go to war against Iraq.
DK: I think the weight of the evidence — was not great.
TB: David, as you know, a lot of the president’s political critics are going to say, “This is clear evidence that he lied to the American people.”
DK: Well, Tom, if we do that, I think we’re really hurting ourselves. Clearly, the intelligence that we went to war on was inaccurate, wrong. We need to understand why that was.....
TB: But as you know, the administration and its supporters, not just suggest, but insist that there was a real connection between Saddam Hussein and terrorist organizations that would be a threat to the United States.
DK: Look, I found no real connection between WMD and terrorists....
© 2007 MSNBC Interactive URL: www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4066462/
"
|
|
|
Post by blueneck on Jan 18, 2007 18:05:46 GMT -6
China successfully tested a weapons system that can knock out satellites. Why would a nation so "friendly" to us have a need for such a system?
Also it is well known that China has recently sold silkworm missles to Iran, and inked an oil deal with them accrding to a recent Newsweek article . Again - why would a nation friendly to us sell weapons and finance our known enemy and terrorist supporting state?
Anyone who does not see china as a potential threat to our security is in la- la land.
|
|
|
Post by LibSlayer on Jan 22, 2007 13:22:45 GMT -6
It doesn't prove anything of the sort. . Yes it does, it proves that Americans aren’t taking lower paid jobs as their jobs are outsourced. If Americans were taking lower paid jobs the nominal wages would be decreasing, that isn’t the case, nominal wages are increasing. Real wages are now up 30 cents under Bush and accelerating. data.bls.gov/PDQ/servlet/SurveyOutputServletNominal wages have been steadily increasing, that inflation robs the buying power doesn’t change that fact.
|
|