- This topic has 40 replies, 8 voices, and was last updated 7 years, 9 months ago by
FlyerInHi.
-
AuthorPosts
-
January 30, 2017 at 6:38 PM #805227January 30, 2017 at 7:12 PM #805228
spdrun
ParticipantAs far as I know, people other than the President have to validate a nuclear launch order — do you think STRATCOM officials will be very cooperative if they suspect that the President has gone barking mad?
January 30, 2017 at 9:10 PM #805231FlyerInHi
GuestI’m not afraid to die either, although I do want to live a long healthy life.
What worries me is the incompetence in D.C. Our prosperity and national interest are at stake.
I just watched a Chinese official being interviewed on NBC. The guy doesn’t even speak perfect English, but he was so good that Richard Engel, a veteran journalist, was thrown into stuttering.
January 31, 2017 at 9:18 AM #805242no_such_reality
ParticipantWhile I consider the relationship with China vitally important, I have concerns with some of the claimed benefits of globalization.
We’ve spent most of the last 100 years in our country, improving our standard living through recognizing and managing external costs: worker protections so that workers don’t get ground into sausage when they slip in the slaughter house, clean water acts so our rivers don’t burn, clean air acts so acid rain doesn’t kill land and the air kills us, pollution controls so toxic waste doesn’t destroy entire communities.
These improvements have resulted in a hiring standard of living and greater structural costs for doing business here.
So why do we think beneficial to trade where the economic advantage is they’re still ignoring all those external costs?
It often seems like we saying we first have to help the emerging markets clear cut all their forest, like we mistakenly did, before we help them establish sustainable forest management.
We could roll back the clean air act, clean water act, OSHA requirements here, the environment reviews, the pollution regulation, so we’re competitive does anybody think that’s a good idea?
January 31, 2017 at 10:20 AM #805243
CoronitaParticipant[quote=no_such_reality]While I consider the relationship with China vitally important, I have concerns with some of the claimed benefits of globalization.
We’ve spent most of the last 100 years in our country, improving our standard living through recognizing and managing external costs: worker protections so that workers don’t get ground into sausage when they slip in the slaughter house, clean water acts so our rivers don’t burn, clean air acts so acid rain doesn’t kill land and the air kills us, pollution controls so toxic waste doesn’t destroy entire communities.
These improvements have resulted in a hiring standard of living and greater structural costs for doing business here.
So why do we think beneficial to trade where the economic advantage is they’re still ignoring all those external costs?
It often seems like we saying we first have to help the emerging markets clear cut all their forest, like we mistakenly did, before we help them establish sustainable forest management.
We could roll back the clean air act, clean water act, OSHA requirements here, the environment reviews, the pollution regulation, so we’re competitive does anybody think that’s a good idea?[/quote]
That’s fine. Just expect that, with the average american consumer tapped out, and our country knee deep in debt, there’s going to be very limited growth if all we do is count on domestic spending moving forward.
And we won’t be competitive in many industries outside of the US where there growth will be, if we don’t have any other advantage versus some “cheap player”… Even more of a reason why we need to hire immigrants with advanced technological knowhow. If we don’t, they will go somewhere else.
January 31, 2017 at 11:10 AM #805246Participant[quote=flu]
if we don’t have any other advantage versus some “cheap player”… [/quote]How do you develop advantages when you strip mine your own industry and send it elsewhere?
Seriously. I used to live in Detroit. There’s many plots of land in the Detroit area with serious industrial pollution. Steel plants in PA, etc. Same thing.
You can start up and compete, in a more sustainable way, but the large corporations have moved their plants to Mexico or China, where there still dumping all the external costs into the environment.
On a PPP/GDP basis, China is still at twice our greenhouse gas output. On an actual nominal dollar GDP basis more like triple.
As a metaphor, it be like our country saying we will import all the Blue Fin tuna we want from Chinese fishermen while our Fisherman have strict regulations on catch limits and sizes.
January 31, 2017 at 1:07 PM #805252GuestNSR, by your reasoning,we should have federal laws preventing california companies from moving to Texas, or moving from northern industrial states to southern, right to work states. Why not focus on keeping the high hanging fruits? Why get upset at companies that already moved to Mexico?
We develop advantages by creating new products and services. Can’t count on business remaining static.
Plus to need trade agreement so we can shape global market forces. Without trade agreements, we’re only left with market forces. Without TPP, our intellectual property is not protected and each country is free to make their own rules.
January 31, 2017 at 1:28 PM #805254Participant[quote=FlyerInHi]NSR, by your reasoning,we should have federal laws preventing california companies from moving to Texas, or moving from northern industrial states to southern, right to work states. Why not focus on keeping the high hanging fruits? Why get upset at companies that already moved to Mexico?
We develop advantages by creating new products and services. Can’t count on business remaining static.
Plus to need trade agreement so we can shape global market forces. Without trade agreements, we’re only left with market forces. Without TPP, our intellectual property is not protected and each country is free to make their own rules.[/quote]
Sorry Brian, no cake and eat it too. You can’t buy a car that doesn’t meet California emissions standards and register it here. Cheap labor, IMHO, is the red herring. Whether it’s China manufacturing or Texas. The real goal is to escape regulations, whether environmental or labor.
Or should we allow ourselves to buy anything?
(And I’m well aware that the primary difference between the CARB-compliant catalytic converter and the non-CARB compliant catalytic converter is one paid $20,000 plus testing fees to get the label and one didn’t.)
January 31, 2017 at 2:25 PM #805255CoronitaParticipant[quote=no_such_reality][quote=flu]
if we don’t have any other advantage versus some “cheap player”… [/quote]How do you develop advantages when you strip mine your own industry and send it elsewhere?
[/quote]Easy, follow how Qualcomm wins in China again all the super low cost players that can offer very similar competitive offerings. Well until Apple tried to screw that up with this FTC lawsuit…..
And then contrast that with other players like Broadcom, Marvel, and to a lesser extent MediaTek who all try to compete on cost. Hint: most of them are no longer in that business anymore.
Now, if you make the argument that Qualcomm’s patent royalty gravy train isn’t really core business and providing jobs for say those that are making the modems/chips. I disagree. We all know that in the real world, when you have a large company, about 20-25% of the employees and company ends up generating the cash cow for the remaining 75-80% of the employees/jobs at the company. Same could be said for any other company.
Or for auto industry, build a premium product so that you can charge a fat margin on, so that you can afford the higher cost labor, with presumably higher workmanship…. I guess that’s how BMW gets away with running factories in the U.S….
Or… Move your factories to a state that has “right-to-work” laws and have very low minimum wages…..
Or don’t build low cost cars like ford focus/ford fiesta if they don’t pencil out….As they currently don’t in the U.S.
You think if GM builds a Buick in Detroit and ships it back to China, it can hold its marketshare there?
January 31, 2017 at 2:37 PM #805256GuestI haven’t done it lately, but I think you can register a non-california compliant car provided it’s x months old and already registered in another state. Not sure how many months.
Trump believes we have too many regulations. Honestly, I run a small business and I don’t face any federal regulations. They are all county and state (county department of health, and Cal EPA). I have not experienced any “job killing” regulation from Obama. Once in a while we have to fill out a survey for the Feds. Joe the plumber hasn’t owned a business and doesn’t know what he’s talking about. He should point to some specific regs so we know what he means.
Anyway, why not start preventing the flyover states from poaching our California companies? Pass federal laws to prevent them from offering subsidies and incentives to our businesses. Lets bitch about Texas first before we bitch about China and Mexico.
January 31, 2017 at 3:03 PM #805260GuestFlu, interesting you should mention patents and trademarks. That’s where we have a competitive advantage. Without trade agreements or WTO, we have very little intellectual property protection.
Those who are against multilateral trade deals didn’t really think of the implications of each country going its own way on trade.
January 31, 2017 at 3:19 PM #805259ucodegen
Participant[quote=FlyerInHi]I’m not afraid to die either, although I do want to live a long healthy life.
What worries me is the incompetence in D.C. Our prosperity and national interest are at stake.
I just watched a Chinese official being interviewed on NBC. The guy doesn’t even speak perfect English, but he was so good that Richard Engel, a veteran journalist, was thrown into stuttering.
https://youtu.be/d7J6wFa-vYc%5B/quote%5D
I could go through and show a whole bunch of inconsistencies with above statement.. but I’ll show one – you can find the rest. The Chinese official was very evasive – not really answering the questions put to him. Example:gist – did China ask us if they could devalue their currency, build installations on what has international land and lay claim to waters under questionable grounds? On the other hand, China seems to feel it has the right to so comment against the United States on whether the US can devalue its currency – etc.
official’s response was – well you have all heard the official statement on that – and then launches into a long song and dance, not really saying much content nor directly addressing the question.I don’t consider the Chinese official good, but I do think that the veteran journalist started realizing that he was being stonewalled, with questions not really being answered and wanting to avoid conflict while the Chinese official didn’t care.
Mainland Chinese are educated into the official party line at a very early age. It becomes almost rote. What the Chinese official did was defer followed by party line statement that was not really related to the question. There is a Chinese born miss World Canada that talks about this. Here is her statement on the propaganda and thought control/conformity:
Here is some meddling at personal affairs, reaching down into other nations – directly affecting individual citizens:
January 31, 2017 at 3:21 PM #805261Participant[quote=FlyerInHi]Flu, interesting you should mention patents and trademarks. That’s where we have a competitive advantage. Without trade agreements or WTO, we have very little intellectual property protection.
Those who are against multilateral trade deals didn’t really think of the implications of each country going its own way on trade.[/quote]
True, but it can be used against us too – forcing the US into agreements it should really avoid. Besides, without trade agreements with the US, China can’t protect its IP either.January 31, 2017 at 3:23 PM #805262Participant[quote=FlyerInHi]I haven’t done it lately, but I think you can register a non-california compliant car provided it’s x months old and already registered in another state. Not sure how many months.[/quote]
Not compliant in which way? It must have original emissions controls for Federal, or if aftermarket parts – parts must be CARB compliant. You need to keep all the paperwork from when the parts have been bought because the records at the Referee are not as complete at they should be. If the vehicle is pre 1976, rules are diff.January 31, 2017 at 3:34 PM #805263Participant[quote=no_such_reality]
Sorry Brian, no cake and eat it too. You can’t buy a car that doesn’t meet California emissions standards and register it here. Cheap labor, IMHO, is the red herring. Whether it’s China manufacturing or Texas. The real goal is to escape regulations, whether environmental or labor.[/quote]I wouldn’t say that cheap labor is the red herring. I think it is part of the equation, which includes other costs including labor (as mentioned by you – and which actually makes labor more expensive like min wages, Soc Sec), and environmental.
[quote=no_such_reality]
(And I’m well aware that the primary difference between the CARB-compliant catalytic converter and the non-CARB compliant catalytic converter is one paid $20,000 plus testing fees to get the label and one didn’t.)[/quote]
I don’t think it is the ‘testing’ fees, since they test the same. CARB compliant catalytic converters are required to last 50,000 miles. If they fail before 50,000 miles, manufacturer is required to replace them. For the most part, the diff in the price is a ‘warrantee’ that is attached to the cat. If you put a Fed next to a CARB cat, they are the same except for part numbers stamped on the body.And BTW, I second your (no_such_reality) comment here: https://piggington.com/maybe_we_should_start_thinking_about_plan_b#comment-275664
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.