|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Dec 10, 2006 18:08:04 GMT -6
On Friday, December 8th, the House of Representatives passed H.R. 6406, by a vote of 212-184 This bill allows for "normalization" of trade with Vietnam. This new "permanent normalization of trade relations" (PNTR) with Vietnam is the first step in opening up Vietnam's labor market to exploitation by Corporate America and to the outsourcing of American jobs to Vietnam. What are the relative "benefits" to the United States? It allegedly opens up the Vietnamese "consumer" market to American goods. However, the benefit of such market opening is minuscule. The exchange traded value of Vietnam's entire GDP is only $43 billion. (See Vietnam: CIA assessment ) This is approximately 3/100ths of a percent of U.S. GDP. To put it another way, if Vietnam's entire GDP was spent on American imports, it would raise U.S. GDP .03%. So a U.S. GDP growth of 2.20% would rise to 2.23%. Again, this is assuming ALL of Vietnam's GDP was spent on American goods, which is certainly not going to happen. Vietnam's Exchange Rate per capita GDP is only $521/year. {Vietnam's Purchasing Power Parity (PPP) per capita GDP is listed as $2800. By converting this to an exchange rate value this becomes a per capita income of only $521/year. It's the Exchange Rate income that is important here, because this measures the ability to purchase American imports.} Given these numbers it's very unlikely that we can sell significant U.S production to Vietnamese consumers. What's the downside? Vietnam has a labor force of 43 million workers. Once Vietnam is opened up to investment by Corporate America, this could become a virtual addition of 43 million workers to America's 152 million participating labor force. If Corporate America replaced 43 million American workers ( averaging $17/hour ) with 43 million Vietnamese workers, it would reduce American labor & consumer income by $1.52 trillion. (43 million X $17/hr. X 8 hrs./day X 365 days/yr. X 5 days/wk divided by 7 days/week = $1.52 trillion. ) This would also reduce American consumer spending power by $1.52 trillion dollars. A decline in consumer spending by that $1.52 trillion, subtracted directly from our $13 trillion GDP, would amount to a direct decline in our GDP of almost 12%. (Applying any multiplier would drop our GDP far more than 12%) Of course, we could "gain" that whopping 0.03% in GDP from selling our exports to Vietnam. These are theoretical calculations only, designed to show the magnitude of relative benefits vs. costs to Americans from "normalization" of trade with Vietnam. While Corporate America is not likely to hire all 43 million Vietnamese workers, it's clear that the potential loss to our economy is much greater than the potential gain. We'll gain an almost non-existent consumer market from Vietnam, while adding a virtual 43 million workers to America's labor pool. And the direct loss of jobs is only the measurable effect. The decline in American wages from the supply & demand effect of competition with another 43 million impoverished workers hasn't been calculated. Clearly this would decrease American wages and labor income MUCH more than just $1.52 trillion. To the majority of Americans, permanent normalization of trade with Vietnam is exclusively negative. Once again, it'll put American workers (and their wages) in direct competition with impoverished 3rd world workers. Clearly the goal here is not to open up the Vietnamese consumer market to American goods. The goal is to open up the Vietnamese labor market to American Multinational Corporations. The true goal is to replace even more American workers with easily exploitable semi-slave laborers of another impoverished country. It'll be another disaster for American workers, and another windfall profit gain for rich Globalist Corporations.
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Dec 13, 2006 23:44:39 GMT -6
Dennis Kucinich speaking from the Floor of the House"
Nov 14, 2006
"Yesterday, permanent trade relations for Vietnam was brought before the House with no committee hearings and under suspension of the rules. I spoke against the bill and demanded a rollcall vote, and last night the bill failed to get the necessary two-thirds, so it was defeated.
"Now, the people of Vietnam deserve our help. The United States actually has a moral obligation of a long-standing nature with respect to Vietnam that we don't really need to elaborate on, because we understand what this Nation did to Vietnam. If you care about Vietnam, you should care to know that the permanent trade relations would have this effect, this bill. It would cause millions of peasants to be thrown off the land as agricultural supports are withdrawn.
"Millions of workers losing their jobs at State enterprises wither in the face of foreign competition or downsize and speed up operations in an effort to stay competitive. As a result of these and other factors, there would be a surge in income and wealth inequality, exacerbating dangerous trends already under way.
"Until we have a trade policy that has workers rights, human rights and environmental quality principles, all that free trade means for nations like Vietnam is more exploitation of the country and of the workers. That is why we need to vote down this bill when it comes back this week."
Of course, it wasn't voted down. It went through on December 8th.
|
|
|
Post by Libslayer on Dec 22, 2006 21:11:10 GMT -6
"(43 million X $17/hr. X 8 hrs./day X 365 days/yr. X 5 days/wk divided by 7 days/week = $1.52 trillion. )
This would also reduce American consumer spending power by $1.52 trillion dollars"
First there aren't 43 million American jobs that the uneducated Vietnamese population could take. At most there are a few million. And though those few million Americans would lose their jobs, ther other 390+ million Americans would now be paying LESS for those goods, leaving them more income to spend on other things they want/need, raising the standard of living for the rest.
With that income not spent on the expensive American made products they will buy more goods and services creating more jobs, jobs for the displaced American workers.
|
|
|
Post by blueneck on Dec 22, 2006 22:19:22 GMT -6
Man dude, all you got is your righty economic talking points don't you.
Face it, your voodoo economics and blind devotion to failed trade policy don't work.
Vietnam doesn't have that capacity to take 43 million jobs, but India certainly does, and is working on that. But again why should US workers sacrifice their own well being to raise the rest of the worlds stds (which is a false argument anyway)
|
|
|
Post by LibSlayer on Dec 22, 2006 23:30:22 GMT -6
"Vietnam doesn't have that capacity to take 43 million jobs"
What I said was there AREN'T 43 million AMERICAN jobs for Vietnamese to take, that applies to India, China and anybody else.
"But again why should US workers sacrifice their own well being to raise the rest of the worlds stds (which is a false argument anyway)"
US workers AREN'T sacraficing, nominal wages are steadily INCREASING.
"Man dude, all you got is your righty economic talking points don't you."
All I have are simple economic realities which you nuts fail to deal with.
"blind devotion to failed trade policy don't work"
There is nothing failed about it.
|
|
|
Post by blueneck on Dec 23, 2006 13:46:43 GMT -6
Last I checked, china is still a communist dictatorship, and their "president" is on the state depts. top ten most brutal dictators list, not the bastion of democracy and capitalism you and your ilk wish it to be.
Ask the 3 million unemployed manufacturing workers if free trade isn't a failed policy.
|
|
|
Post by LibSlayer on Dec 23, 2006 16:51:34 GMT -6
"Last I checked, china is still a communist dictatorship, and their "president" is on the state depts. top ten most brutal dictators list, not the bastion of democracy and capitalism you and your ilk wish it to be." Which has what to do with anything? "Ask the 3 million unemployed manufacturing workers if free trade isn't a failed policy." I will ask the 150 million employed workers who now pay MUCH LESS for the things they want if it is a success. Schultze: In the short run, an increase in offshoring reduces U.S. job growth. But in the long run it improves the standard of living, increases real wages, and increases the country's economic growth. Schultze is now Senior Fellow Emeritus at the Brookings Institution, with impeccable Democratic credentials. He was President Lyndon Johnson's budget director in the 1960's www.factcheck.org/article225.html Global Insight's research was supervised by Lawrence Klein, a Nobel Laureate and Professor Emeritus at the University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School of Business. He told FactCheck.org: Klein: In the initial phases of IT offshoring there is a loss of jobs, but the overall impact on the economy will be favorable. Because companies are paying lower costs, they have more money for investment which leads to an increased demand for labor. www.factcheck.org/article225.html
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Jan 8, 2007 18:04:09 GMT -6
I will ask the 150 million employed workers who now pay MUCH LESS for the things they want if it is a success. Don't forget to ask the other 80 million working age Americans who do not have a job while you're at it. And don't forget to ask all of the Americans who've lost homes or declared bankruptcy as a result of Bush-induced job losses.
|
|
|
Post by blueneck on Jan 9, 2007 15:55:31 GMT -6
How? this statement so defies common sense that its not even worth further comment. Nor does a "fact check" on Kerry, Kerry is pro free trade.
It has everything to do with it, it shows the hypocrisy of the right and the gloablists in their vigorous defense and support of China, a country that supplies arms and technology to our enemies and potential enemies, where do you think Saddam got his Scuds, or Kim Jong Il his nuclear technology? They are buying their oil from Iran. And they got their money to do this from us - they finance a big chunk of our national debt and collect interest, and they have a good chunk of our manufaturing infrastructure and technologyu now too. Anyone who doesn't think this is a threat to national security is living in la-la land.
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Jan 10, 2007 15:07:32 GMT -6
quote: " Schultze: In the short run, an increase in offshoring reduces U.S. job growth. But in the long run it improves the standard of living, increases real wages, and increases the country's economic growth.
" his statement so defies common sense that its not even worth further comment.... Exactly. It makes no sense whatsoever. It's very simple to explain how outsourcing costs Americans jobs. It's very difficult to show how "in the long run it improves the standard of living, increases real wages...." The reason it's so difficult to show Schultz's latter point is because it's pure economic fantasy. There is no logic, facts, or statistics to back it up. It's this kind of "magical thinking" that seems to have infected so many economic analysts. There's no reason why capital investment in a foreign country would produce more American jobs than capital investment in the United States. That's the real fantasy these globalists are trying to perpetuate-- somehow capital investment in a foreign country will create more American jobs than an equal amount of capital investment in this country. It's a ridiculous assertion and makes no sense, regardless of how many times the Right-wing Corporate media regurgitates it, and regardless of how many new stories they concoct to try to explain it. More American jobs are created by investment in America than from investment in a foreign country. Even a 1st-grader could follow that.
|
|
|
Post by blueneck on Jan 10, 2007 20:10:11 GMT -6
"Magical Thinking" permeates most of right wing theory - like giving more money to the rich stimulates the economy, or escalating troops in Iraq, or giving all of our technology and infrastructure to the communists.
Its "faith based" thinking rather than reality based.
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Jan 11, 2007 14:06:42 GMT -6
"Magical Thinking" permeates most of right wing theory - like giving more money to the rich stimulates the economy Exactly. Giving money to the rich goes with the "investment creates jobs" myth. Investment capital creates jobs only when there is an anticipated demand for production those jobs can provide for. At any particular level of aggregate demand, there is only so much capital investment demand and investment opportunity. When monetary giveaways to the rich exceed investment demand, the excess capital provided goes into non-productive, non-capital investment avenues such as bonds, stocks, precious metals, or offshore accounts. Giving more money to the rich is of no benefit if there is insufficient production demand by consumers to make further capital investment profitable. In fact, if those giveaways increase investment in foreign production facilities, it has a negative effect on our economy, because it further reduces American production demand by replacing it with foreign production. Further tax cuts for the rich are not only wasteful, they are counterproductive if they result in American production being replaced with foreign production, and American investment being replaced with foreign investment. Both have occurred under the Bush dictatorship. And both have hurt our economy. It's even beyond "faith-based." It's insanity-based and it's greed-based.
|
|
|
Post by LibSlayer on Jan 22, 2007 13:35:43 GMT -6
I will ask the 150 million employed workers who now pay MUCH LESS for the things they want if it is a success. Don't forget to ask the other 80 million working age Americans who do not have a job while you're at it. And don't forget to ask all of the Americans who've lost homes or declared bankruptcy as a result of Bush-induced job losses. If they WANTED to work, they WOULD be working. Bush had nothing to do with it. If I have a right to buy a car made in Japan and sell it to somebody, then others have a right to buy software made in India and sell it.
|
|
|
Post by LibSlayer on Jan 22, 2007 13:36:43 GMT -6
quote: " Schultze: In the short run, an increase in offshoring reduces U.S. job growth. But in the long run it improves the standard of living, increases real wages, and increases the country's economic growth.
" his statement so defies common sense that its not even worth further comment.... Exactly. It makes no sense whatsoever. It makes perfect sense if you understand economics.
|
|
|
Post by LibSlayer on Jan 22, 2007 13:38:09 GMT -6
It is only magical to the ignroant, much as the radio is "magical" to a remote tribe that has never seen one.
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Jan 22, 2007 21:55:34 GMT -6
It is only magical to the ignroant, much as the radio is "magical" to a remote tribe that has never seen one. No, only "ignroant" people believe such magical thinking.
|
|
|
Post by blueneck on Jan 23, 2007 5:29:13 GMT -6
Please "enlighten" us with your wisdom as to how this makes perfect sense? I guess the A's in all three econ classes I took in college doesn't mean much In fact anyone who passed Econ 101 understands exactly why it doesn't make any sense. I don't claim to be an economist by any means, but when something doesn't pass the smell teste i can spot it a mile away This is one of the biggest Red Herrings there is. Sure there is work if you want to wait tables or cook hamburgers or stock shelves in walmart, not much in the way of good paying/good benefit middle class jobs though. Yet another "debate" tactic commonly used by the right- when your argument runs out of steam, resort to insults.
|
|
|
Post by LibSlayer on Jan 23, 2007 8:14:27 GMT -6
"Please enlighten us with your wisdom as to how this makes perfect sense?" It means that the rest of Americans, the other 298 MILLION, can now buy the products those Americans made cheaper, and still have money left over to buy other goods/services. It means the company is more profiitable with more money to invest in R&D in new products/services, all creating new jobs. "Schultze: In the short run, an increase in offshoring reduces U.S. job growth. But in the long run it improves the standard of living, increases real wages, and increases the country's economic growth. Schultze is now Senior Fellow Emeritus at the Brookings Institution, with impeccable Democratic credentials. He was President Lyndon Johnson's budget director in the 1960's" www.factcheck.org/article225.html Global Insight's research was supervised by Lawrence Klein, a Nobel Laureate and Professor Emeritus at the University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School of Business. He told FactCheck.org: Klein: In the initial phases of IT offshoring there is a loss of jobs, but the overall impact on the economy will be favorable. Because companies are paying lower costs, they have more money for investment which leads to an increased demand for labor. www.factcheck.org/article225.html Catherine L. Mann of the Institute for International Economics analyzed the outsourcing of manufactured components by U.S. computer and telecommunications companies in the 1990s. She concludes that outsourcing reduced the prices of computers and communications equipment by 10% to 30%. This stimulated the IT investment boom and fueled the rapid expansion of IT jobs www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/04_08/b3871032_mz007.htm
|
|
|
Post by LibSlayer on Jan 23, 2007 8:15:25 GMT -6
"No, only "ignroant" people believe such magical thinking. "
No, only ignorant people believe it IS magical thinking.
|
|
|
Post by LibSlayer on Jan 23, 2007 8:33:27 GMT -6
" This is one of the biggest Red Herrings there is. Sure there is work if you want to wait tables or cook hamburgers or stock shelves in walmart, not much in the way of good paying/good benefit middle class jobs though. U.S. manufacturers getting desperate for skilled people Updated 12/5/2006 www.usatoday.com/money/economy/employment/2006-12-05-skilled-workers-shortage_x.htm"The labor market is hot and getting hotter, and that is one of the reasons the Fed continues to raise rates," said Drew Matus, a senior economist at Lehman Brothers in New York. www.iht.com/articles/2005/12/04/news/bxecon.php Florida, with a 3.4 percent jobless rate, and Montana, with 4.3 percent, in October recorded their lowest unemployment rates since record-keeping began in 1976, www.iht.com/articles/2005/12/04/news/bxecon.php"Paris-based Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development notes that economic momentum is "already strong in North America and most of Asia" and is now "well established in Japan," with Europe "progressively recovering."" www.spectrum.ieee.org/feb06/2779For computer science in particular, the need for workers will far outstrip the available talent. www.spectrum.ieee.org/feb06/2779Labor Crunch Pushes State Government IT Departments Toward Outsourcing www.computerworld.com/careertopics/careers/story/0,10801,108154,00.html?SKC=careers-108154 September 27, 2006 "What we see from this is that tech companies are hiring for technical positions inside the U.S., but they're having a hard time filling those positions" www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&taxonomyName=careers&articleId=9003689&taxonomyId=10&intsrc=kc_topBut the reality of the 2006 job market is that it's the strongest in five years for the nation's 1.4 million new graduates, whatever their major, as seniors finally have the luxury of choosing among multiple offers from employers promising good pay and perks. Employers report that they're planning to hire 14.5 percent more new college grads this year than they hired in 2005 -- and at starting-salary offers that are up 6.2 percent on average to $45,723 from a year ago, the National Association of Colleges and Employers reports. Demand was so strong at the University of Texas at Austin that employers were turned away at the McCombs School of Business fall career fair after signups last summer reached capacity 150 recruiters. seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/265212_classof0603.html
|
|
|
Post by blueneck on Jan 26, 2007 5:36:59 GMT -6
Again with the one sided and magical thinking - - all the spin and talking points in the world do not change reality
|
|
|
Post by LibSlayer on Jan 26, 2007 8:08:49 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by blueneck on Jan 26, 2007 17:43:18 GMT -6
Funny - its you and your right wing ilk that are the experts at ignoring the facts, evidence and reality.
|
|
|
Post by LibSlayer on Jan 26, 2007 18:28:38 GMT -6
Funny - its you and your right wing ilk that are the experts at ignoring the facts, evidence and reality. I am the one who keeps presenting the facts, you have nothing by leftwing talking point and refuse to deal with the FACTS. Yes, the CEO gains were higher under clinton than Bush. www.aflcio.org/corporatewatch/paywatch/pay/index.cfm Why do you ignore the fact that CEO pay shot up under clinton but has gone down under Bush?
|
|
|
Post by LibSlayer on Jan 26, 2007 18:29:10 GMT -6
Funny - its you and your right wing ilk that are the experts at ignoring the facts, evidence and reality. I am the one who keeps presenting the facts, you have nothing by leftwing talking pointS and refuse to deal with the FACTS. Yes, the CEO gains were higher under clinton than Bush. www.aflcio.org/corporatewatch/paywatch/pay/index.cfm Why do you ignore the fact that CEO pay shot up under clinton but has gone down under Bush?
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Jan 26, 2007 19:05:21 GMT -6
Again with the one sided and magical thinking - - all the spin and talking points in the world do not change reality I just pointed out FACTS to you and as a typical lefty you ignore reality. The labor market is hot and getting hotter, and that is one of the reasons the Fed continues to raise rates," said Drew Matus, a senior economist at Lehman Brothers in New York. The only "fact" here is that a Right-Wing, Corporate-paid economist, whose job is to spin (and create) facts to help his Corporate masters, has expressed his fact-free opinion. This is just propaganda designed to encourage Congress to allow more immigration, both legal and illegal, to help drive labor costs down. Here are the real "facts." There are 230 million working age Americans. Only 146 million are employed. That leaves 84 million working-age Americans who are NOT employed. How do you get a labor "shortage" when you have 85 million potential workers who are not employed? Easy. Don't offer market-level wages to employ them. How do your relieve this "pseudo-shortage." Raise wages enough to entice more workers to work for you. Not enough skilled workers? Raise wages enough to make it financially beneficial for workers to get extra training. Or, horror of horrors, the employers could actually train workers themselves. Of course that would cut into their exorbitant, record-level profits. And we can't have that, can we. Better to spend that money lobbying Congress for more handouts and business-friendly legislation-- more legislation that restricts freedom, such as extension of patent protection and laws preventing collective bargaining. You haven't presented any "facts." You've presented nothing more than the unsubstantiated "opinion" of another self-serving Corporate shill.
|
|
|
Post by blueneck on Jan 26, 2007 20:10:19 GMT -6
Funny he keeps calling me a lefty - I agree and identify more with Pat Buchanan, who used to be considered a god of true conservatism, than anyone else.
|
|
|
Post by LibSlayer on Jan 27, 2007 9:33:51 GMT -6
"The only here is that a Right-Wing, Corporate-paid economist, whose job is to spin (and create) facts to help his Corporate masters, has expressed his fact-free opinion. This is just propaganda designed to encourage Congress to allow more immigration, both legal and illegal, to help drive labor costs down. "
And more of your idiotic ramblings about some massive conspiracy. Yet you can't present even ONE piece of information that disproves the facts I posted.
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Jan 27, 2007 14:41:35 GMT -6
Funny he keeps calling me a lefty - I agree and identify more with Pat Buchanan, who used to be considered a god of true conservatism, than anyone else. Don't try to confuse him with the "facts." He's too busy creating his own. We're all just part of a great "left-wing" conspiracy that includes "comrades" Pat Buchanan, former Reagan appointees Paul Craig Roberts & Senator Jim Webb, Lou Dobbs (a registered Republican), Republican Congressman Ron Paul, and former Nixon counsel John Dean. Even the John Birch Society would now fall under this new "left-wing" umbrella, with their "protectionist" views. Yes indeed. Better watch out for all of us "lefties." Our "conspiracy" is gaining support.
|
|
|
Post by blueneck on Jan 28, 2007 7:48:07 GMT -6
Add "comrade" Newt Gingrich to that list, he is quoted in todays newspaper "If we can't stop criminals and drug dealers at our southern border, how are we to stop a terrorist?" and "China's recent anti-satellite weapons test should serve as a grim reminder that the US no longer has a scientific and therefore military technology advantage"
It is indeed a situation of politics making stange bedfellows - today is a time where true labor democrats (largely blue collar and socially conservative) have found common ground with the true conservatives on trade and border issues, fiscal responsibility, as well as national security begins at home and avoidance of foreign entanglements.
On the other hand, in the bizarro world that is that of the neocons, the common ground is with the old school and ultra-liberals on open borders, globalization, drunken sailor government spending, nation building, privacy intrusion, and big government. The right wing world where the communists are our friends, you know - the postion of such goosestepping wingnuts as Bill and hillary Clinton and John Kerry
The position of border security and fair trade vs "free" trade as esposued by serious and real conservatives is hardly a left wing position.
|
|