Free traders and housing bubble nuts

[Rt.66]

Korea post its strongest growth in 5 years; real growth from producing real things. http://www.newser.com/article/d99kn7cg0/south-koreas-economy-surges-to-highest-growth-in-5-12-years-in-second-quarter.html

America is realizing 5 months of record breaking unemployment and skyrocketing deficits that have us all thinking billion$ are nothing, because trillion$ are what our debts to the countries who make our stuff, are now measured in.

We owe S. Korea $38 Billion, we owe Japan $634 billion. All of you wise consumers who pat yourselves on the back for your astute purchase of a Hyundai or Nissan are simply hanging yourselves (mostly your children) with the rope that the US Gov. gave you in the guise of “fair trade”.

Just as with the housing bubble, the rational in our society are left to suffer the irrational. Those who argue that “free trade” is all that matters, and whom gladly send the money they earn in America to foreign countries and try and convince others it’s the right thing to do with steadfast determination, can’t be stopped by the rational.

We sat and watched as housing “investors” drove housing to absurd levels, powerless to do anything about it. While we sounded the alarms of sanity they, like lemmings, continued to buy and sell each other houses for greater and greater debt loads.

We must also suffer their sophomoric ideals of “free trade” until???? Where will it end? How bad do things need to get before they realize maybe keeping money and jobs in the US will eventually benefit even them, and doing the opposite will eventually hurt even them? It appears that day of reckoning will come at serious costs, as today the idea of losing 500,000 -700,000 jobs a month is undettering to the “free trade” folks.

What will our economy look like when the “free trade” nuts finally admit that our lopsided trade policies have cost our children dearly. For a clue, look at the tatters the housing bubble nuts left us in.

Just as shacks selling for $500k was ridiculous, so is the idea that we can go on sending our hard earned money to other countries/economies without grave damage to our own. Still it takes quite a lot to convince those whose thoughts are clouded by their own wisdom.

Surely even the most adamant foreign car supporter can rationalize that as a country we must generate income; if only to pay the trillions we owe to the countries who build actual things.

Would you like to continue on the path we are on, or would a strong national effort to return us to our profitable manufacturing roots be better than more of this:

“We were on the verge of a complete financial meltdown, and the reason was that Wall Street took extraordinary risks with other people’s money. They were peddling loans that they knew could never be repaid. They were flipping those loans and leveraging those loans. Higher and higher mountains of debts were being built on loans that were fundamentally unsound . . . and all of us are now paying the price.”

President Obama

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=Rt.66]
Would you like to continue on the path we are on, or would a strong national effort to return us to our profitable manufacturing roots be better than more of this:

[/quote]

Scarlet: “Return us to our PROFITABLE MANUFACTURING ROOTS”.

I would be the first to argue that the US needs to return to it’s profitable manufacturing roots, however, organized labor has done more to destroy profitable American manufacturing than any other force, including counter-productive US trade policies.

See the following quote from Vedder:

While there are no doubt many individual members of labor unions who feel they have benefited from collective bargaining, the overall evidence is overwhelming that labor unions in contemporary America have had harmful aggregate effects on the economy.

* The economic cost of unions (determined by combining lost income and output over the period 1947 to 2000) exceeds $50 trillion, according to estimates by economists Richard K. Vedder and Lowell E. Gallaway.
* Unionization lowers incomes for all, albeit more in the relatively higher income states that on average have higher levels of unionization.
* A state with a 10 percent unionized work force can expect a 0.7 percent increase in its unemployment rate.
* For each four additional workers who become unionized, one less person works.

In the final years of the 1990s, the decline in union density in the private sector has been sharp, adding to the vitality of the economy at the beginning of the new century. As a result, there has been renewed economic growth and a rising proportion of the working age population that actually works.

Source: Richard K. Vedder and Lowell E. Gallaway, “Do Unions Help the Economy? The Economic Effects of Labor Unions Revisited,” Government Union Review, Volume 20, Number 4, December 2002, Public Service Research Foundation.

Along with this US Chamber of Commerce report on how union rhetoric distorted the true picture and true costs of the dangers of organized labor and unionization:

http://www.uschamber.com/assets/labor/unionrhetoric_econeffects.pdf

It’s important to note Vedder’s findings that strongly correlate loss of unionization/decline in union density with “improved vitality” in the overall economy at large.

Not only does this completely demolish your arguments regarding organized labor and it’s perceived “benefits”, but it supports the contention that America’s return as a manufacturing superpower will come about in spite of unions and organized labor and not because of them.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=Rt.66]
Would you like to continue on the path we are on, or would a strong national effort to return us to our profitable manufacturing roots be better than more of this:

[/quote]

Scarlet: “Return us to our PROFITABLE MANUFACTURING ROOTS”.

I would be the first to argue that the US needs to return to it’s profitable manufacturing roots, however, organized labor has done more to destroy profitable American manufacturing than any other force, including counter-productive US trade policies.

See the following quote from Vedder:

While there are no doubt many individual members of labor unions who feel they have benefited from collective bargaining, the overall evidence is overwhelming that labor unions in contemporary America have had harmful aggregate effects on the economy.

* The economic cost of unions (determined by combining lost income and output over the period 1947 to 2000) exceeds $50 trillion, according to estimates by economists Richard K. Vedder and Lowell E. Gallaway.
* Unionization lowers incomes for all, albeit more in the relatively higher income states that on average have higher levels of unionization.
* A state with a 10 percent unionized work force can expect a 0.7 percent increase in its unemployment rate.
* For each four additional workers who become unionized, one less person works.

In the final years of the 1990s, the decline in union density in the private sector has been sharp, adding to the vitality of the economy at the beginning of the new century. As a result, there has been renewed economic growth and a rising proportion of the working age population that actually works.

Source: Richard K. Vedder and Lowell E. Gallaway, “Do Unions Help the Economy? The Economic Effects of Labor Unions Revisited,” Government Union Review, Volume 20, Number 4, December 2002, Public Service Research Foundation.

Along with this US Chamber of Commerce report on how union rhetoric distorted the true picture and true costs of the dangers of organized labor and unionization:

http://www.uschamber.com/assets/labor/unionrhetoric_econeffects.pdf

It’s important to note Vedder’s findings that strongly correlate loss of unionization/decline in union density with “improved vitality” in the overall economy at large.

Not only does this completely demolish your arguments regarding organized labor and it’s perceived “benefits”, but it supports the contention that America’s return as a manufacturing superpower will come about in spite of unions and organized labor and not because of them.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=Rt.66]
Would you like to continue on the path we are on, or would a strong national effort to return us to our profitable manufacturing roots be better than more of this:

[/quote]

Scarlet: “Return us to our PROFITABLE MANUFACTURING ROOTS”.

I would be the first to argue that the US needs to return to it’s profitable manufacturing roots, however, organized labor has done more to destroy profitable American manufacturing than any other force, including counter-productive US trade policies.

See the following quote from Vedder:

While there are no doubt many individual members of labor unions who feel they have benefited from collective bargaining, the overall evidence is overwhelming that labor unions in contemporary America have had harmful aggregate effects on the economy.

* The economic cost of unions (determined by combining lost income and output over the period 1947 to 2000) exceeds $50 trillion, according to estimates by economists Richard K. Vedder and Lowell E. Gallaway.
* Unionization lowers incomes for all, albeit more in the relatively higher income states that on average have higher levels of unionization.
* A state with a 10 percent unionized work force can expect a 0.7 percent increase in its unemployment rate.
* For each four additional workers who become unionized, one less person works.

In the final years of the 1990s, the decline in union density in the private sector has been sharp, adding to the vitality of the economy at the beginning of the new century. As a result, there has been renewed economic growth and a rising proportion of the working age population that actually works.

Source: Richard K. Vedder and Lowell E. Gallaway, “Do Unions Help the Economy? The Economic Effects of Labor Unions Revisited,” Government Union Review, Volume 20, Number 4, December 2002, Public Service Research Foundation.

Along with this US Chamber of Commerce report on how union rhetoric distorted the true picture and true costs of the dangers of organized labor and unionization:

http://www.uschamber.com/assets/labor/unionrhetoric_econeffects.pdf

It’s important to note Vedder’s findings that strongly correlate loss of unionization/decline in union density with “improved vitality” in the overall economy at large.

Not only does this completely demolish your arguments regarding organized labor and it’s perceived “benefits”, but it supports the contention that America’s return as a manufacturing superpower will come about in spite of unions and organized labor and not because of them.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=Rt.66]
Would you like to continue on the path we are on, or would a strong national effort to return us to our profitable manufacturing roots be better than more of this:

[/quote]

Scarlet: “Return us to our PROFITABLE MANUFACTURING ROOTS”.

I would be the first to argue that the US needs to return to it’s profitable manufacturing roots, however, organized labor has done more to destroy profitable American manufacturing than any other force, including counter-productive US trade policies.

See the following quote from Vedder:

While there are no doubt many individual members of labor unions who feel they have benefited from collective bargaining, the overall evidence is overwhelming that labor unions in contemporary America have had harmful aggregate effects on the economy.

* The economic cost of unions (determined by combining lost income and output over the period 1947 to 2000) exceeds $50 trillion, according to estimates by economists Richard K. Vedder and Lowell E. Gallaway.
* Unionization lowers incomes for all, albeit more in the relatively higher income states that on average have higher levels of unionization.
* A state with a 10 percent unionized work force can expect a 0.7 percent increase in its unemployment rate.
* For each four additional workers who become unionized, one less person works.

In the final years of the 1990s, the decline in union density in the private sector has been sharp, adding to the vitality of the economy at the beginning of the new century. As a result, there has been renewed economic growth and a rising proportion of the working age population that actually works.

Source: Richard K. Vedder and Lowell E. Gallaway, “Do Unions Help the Economy? The Economic Effects of Labor Unions Revisited,” Government Union Review, Volume 20, Number 4, December 2002, Public Service Research Foundation.

Along with this US Chamber of Commerce report on how union rhetoric distorted the true picture and true costs of the dangers of organized labor and unionization:

http://www.uschamber.com/assets/labor/unionrhetoric_econeffects.pdf

It’s important to note Vedder’s findings that strongly correlate loss of unionization/decline in union density with “improved vitality” in the overall economy at large.

Not only does this completely demolish your arguments regarding organized labor and it’s perceived “benefits”, but it supports the contention that America’s return as a manufacturing superpower will come about in spite of unions and organized labor and not because of them.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=Rt.66]
Would you like to continue on the path we are on, or would a strong national effort to return us to our profitable manufacturing roots be better than more of this:

[/quote]

Scarlet: “Return us to our PROFITABLE MANUFACTURING ROOTS”.

I would be the first to argue that the US needs to return to it’s profitable manufacturing roots, however, organized labor has done more to destroy profitable American manufacturing than any other force, including counter-productive US trade policies.

See the following quote from Vedder:

While there are no doubt many individual members of labor unions who feel they have benefited from collective bargaining, the overall evidence is overwhelming that labor unions in contemporary America have had harmful aggregate effects on the economy.

* The economic cost of unions (determined by combining lost income and output over the period 1947 to 2000) exceeds $50 trillion, according to estimates by economists Richard K. Vedder and Lowell E. Gallaway.
* Unionization lowers incomes for all, albeit more in the relatively higher income states that on average have higher levels of unionization.
* A state with a 10 percent unionized work force can expect a 0.7 percent increase in its unemployment rate.
* For each four additional workers who become unionized, one less person works.

In the final years of the 1990s, the decline in union density in the private sector has been sharp, adding to the vitality of the economy at the beginning of the new century. As a result, there has been renewed economic growth and a rising proportion of the working age population that actually works.

Source: Richard K. Vedder and Lowell E. Gallaway, “Do Unions Help the Economy? The Economic Effects of Labor Unions Revisited,” Government Union Review, Volume 20, Number 4, December 2002, Public Service Research Foundation.

Along with this US Chamber of Commerce report on how union rhetoric distorted the true picture and true costs of the dangers of organized labor and unionization:

http://www.uschamber.com/assets/labor/unionrhetoric_econeffects.pdf

It’s important to note Vedder’s findings that strongly correlate loss of unionization/decline in union density with “improved vitality” in the overall economy at large.

Not only does this completely demolish your arguments regarding organized labor and it’s perceived “benefits”, but it supports the contention that America’s return as a manufacturing superpower will come about in spite of unions and organized labor and not because of them.

[Rt.66]

You are right Allen, whatever it is you said above is proof that we should not support our domestic manufacturers and jobs. We should not demand fair trade laws.

We should continue on the path we are on. Money changing BS like giving Goldman billion$ of our tax dollars to create a stock rally 80% driven by fake trades amongst computers, now that’s the way to go! Clearly better than putting tax dollars to work regaining our own market share.

If a country cheats on us and manipulates its currency or dumps products below cost to steal our markets we should embrace them as long as we get a good deal on whatever it is they build for us. You are right Allen; we should ignore things like that and concentrate our anger on regular working class Americans because they organized into a union. It’s working out good for us so far?

Sorry everyone, Allen set me straight.

[Rt.66]

You are right Allen, whatever it is you said above is proof that we should not support our domestic manufacturers and jobs. We should not demand fair trade laws.

We should continue on the path we are on. Money changing BS like giving Goldman billion$ of our tax dollars to create a stock rally 80% driven by fake trades amongst computers, now that’s the way to go! Clearly better than putting tax dollars to work regaining our own market share.

If a country cheats on us and manipulates its currency or dumps products below cost to steal our markets we should embrace them as long as we get a good deal on whatever it is they build for us. You are right Allen; we should ignore things like that and concentrate our anger on regular working class Americans because they organized into a union. It’s working out good for us so far?

Sorry everyone, Allen set me straight.

[Rt.66]

You are right Allen, whatever it is you said above is proof that we should not support our domestic manufacturers and jobs. We should not demand fair trade laws.

We should continue on the path we are on. Money changing BS like giving Goldman billion$ of our tax dollars to create a stock rally 80% driven by fake trades amongst computers, now that’s the way to go! Clearly better than putting tax dollars to work regaining our own market share.

If a country cheats on us and manipulates its currency or dumps products below cost to steal our markets we should embrace them as long as we get a good deal on whatever it is they build for us. You are right Allen; we should ignore things like that and concentrate our anger on regular working class Americans because they organized into a union. It’s working out good for us so far?

Sorry everyone, Allen set me straight.

[Rt.66]

You are right Allen, whatever it is you said above is proof that we should not support our domestic manufacturers and jobs. We should not demand fair trade laws.

We should continue on the path we are on. Money changing BS like giving Goldman billion$ of our tax dollars to create a stock rally 80% driven by fake trades amongst computers, now that’s the way to go! Clearly better than putting tax dollars to work regaining our own market share.

If a country cheats on us and manipulates its currency or dumps products below cost to steal our markets we should embrace them as long as we get a good deal on whatever it is they build for us. You are right Allen; we should ignore things like that and concentrate our anger on regular working class Americans because they organized into a union. It’s working out good for us so far?

Sorry everyone, Allen set me straight.

[Rt.66]

You are right Allen, whatever it is you said above is proof that we should not support our domestic manufacturers and jobs. We should not demand fair trade laws.

We should continue on the path we are on. Money changing BS like giving Goldman billion$ of our tax dollars to create a stock rally 80% driven by fake trades amongst computers, now that’s the way to go! Clearly better than putting tax dollars to work regaining our own market share.

If a country cheats on us and manipulates its currency or dumps products below cost to steal our markets we should embrace them as long as we get a good deal on whatever it is they build for us. You are right Allen; we should ignore things like that and concentrate our anger on regular working class Americans because they organized into a union. It’s working out good for us so far?

Sorry everyone, Allen set me straight.

[patientrenter]

Rt 66. You don’t like globalization. OK.

So let’s just keep all trading amongst ourselves. Let’s only trade things, services, ideas amongst people like us.

Which countries do that today? North Korea is probably the best example, although even there people at the top get to trade goodies with foreigners.

And why draw the line for “people like us” at people within the USA? Why not trade only with people of the same physical appearance? Or only our own family? Let’s all become self-sufficient survivalists living in the desert.

I really don’t see why restricting trade is helpful. I can see how allowing more market-based currency prices would be helpful, and lower non-tariff and tariff barriers. But restricting trade? Why would it do any less damage than restricting trade amongst Americans?

[patientrenter]

Rt 66. You don’t like globalization. OK.

So let’s just keep all trading amongst ourselves. Let’s only trade things, services, ideas amongst people like us.

Which countries do that today? North Korea is probably the best example, although even there people at the top get to trade goodies with foreigners.

And why draw the line for “people like us” at people within the USA? Why not trade only with people of the same physical appearance? Or only our own family? Let’s all become self-sufficient survivalists living in the desert.

I really don’t see why restricting trade is helpful. I can see how allowing more market-based currency prices would be helpful, and lower non-tariff and tariff barriers. But restricting trade? Why would it do any less damage than restricting trade amongst Americans?

[patientrenter]

Rt 66. You don’t like globalization. OK.

So let’s just keep all trading amongst ourselves. Let’s only trade things, services, ideas amongst people like us.

Which countries do that today? North Korea is probably the best example, although even there people at the top get to trade goodies with foreigners.

And why draw the line for “people like us” at people within the USA? Why not trade only with people of the same physical appearance? Or only our own family? Let’s all become self-sufficient survivalists living in the desert.

I really don’t see why restricting trade is helpful. I can see how allowing more market-based currency prices would be helpful, and lower non-tariff and tariff barriers. But restricting trade? Why would it do any less damage than restricting trade amongst Americans?

[patientrenter]

Rt 66. You don’t like globalization. OK.

So let’s just keep all trading amongst ourselves. Let’s only trade things, services, ideas amongst people like us.

Which countries do that today? North Korea is probably the best example, although even there people at the top get to trade goodies with foreigners.

And why draw the line for “people like us” at people within the USA? Why not trade only with people of the same physical appearance? Or only our own family? Let’s all become self-sufficient survivalists living in the desert.

I really don’t see why restricting trade is helpful. I can see how allowing more market-based currency prices would be helpful, and lower non-tariff and tariff barriers. But restricting trade? Why would it do any less damage than restricting trade amongst Americans?

[Author]

Posts