RoseMorninStar wrote:SirDennis wrote:
This is why companies, oh just off the top of my head, such as Apple should be forced to create jobs inside the market they wish to sell to. If this means taking less profit, so be it. Things used to run pretty well when such policies were in effect.
I thought about this last night.. and the big wrench that I see in this (although I agree that would be wonderful if we could bring some of that manufacturing back) is that the US is DEEPLY in debt to China. That kinda puts us between a rock & a hard place, trade/business-wise, I would think (not knowing much about the business or politics involved).
(I realize the following is straying from the topic slightly, but it is a snapshot of the world the author is oblivious to.)
I agree that the trade imbalance with China is part of the problem. This is owing partly to as Vison suggests, short term planning... China has taken a long view all along and now has the upper hand.
When pondering trade economics and protecting domestic markets, one of the first things that springs to mind for me is what happened with the cod fisheries here in Canada. No sooner does our government close the cod fishery than we begin importing cod from China; not just fresh cod but processed as well. One might surmise, "well they got cod and we don't." But the reality is the cod we buy from China is sourced from Canadian waters. What the?
Another way of looking at it is we will always have a trade deficit if we sell raw materials and buy back finished products. This applies to forestry, gas, and just about everything else.
As for the idea of not being able to grow in perpetuity, I am not suggesting that that should have been the case. But the fact remains that, for instance, cars are being made somewhere and bought here and elsewhere. It is not a case that we use less cars, or should use less cars, because we don't. The only difference is they are made elsewhere. Not because demand went down, but because the corporations were relieved of their responsibility to make cars where they are to be sold. The motivation was not to consume less resources, but to shift more of the value of the cars sold out of the hands of communities and into the pockets of share holders.
My and Vison's seeing things differently may be more a function of regional experience than philosophy or our view of the world in general. Here in Ontario most hospitals and schools were built in the sixties. We have spent the past two decades tearing them down, along with the jobs that they represented. This is not because of declining or stagnant population growth nor the appeal of education. Nor, in the case of hospitals, is it due to less need for health care services. In fact the need for both has increased over the years.
What has changed though is deregulation, privatization, outsourcing, off shore sourcing, and dismantling trade barriers have all increased while corporate responsibility, especially in the area of taxation (ie increased tax deferrals, subsidies without real job creation, bail outs and paying a fair share of taxes in general) have all decreased (ignore the double negative on the deferral point, you know what I mean). All of this has lead to a net reduction in jobs paying a living wage.
What has also hurt Canada is the transformation agriculture has gone through. Along with a general devaluing of produce at the source (in favour of shifting revenue to suppliers and distributors) came a rise in inputs and operational expenses -- most notably in the form of mortgages taken against future yields that did not come to fruit. Even though farming is still the backbone of our economy (and unlike many industries, produces something people actually need) it has been destroyed by the business and banking side of the endeavour. This has come at the expense of farm families and anyone else that looked to agriculture as a moderate source of income (ie for jobs). What's worse is jobs that have been created in the farming sector, especially with the rise of factory farming, are for bounded slaves aka temporary immigrant workers.
The governors' plan is not that we should compete with those in places where jobs are being created (FTZs and the Third World); it is to put people of "the West" in a position where we have no choice but to accept the same working conditions. The new normal. There have been efforts to help raise work standards and such around the world, to help people on the one hand, but also to make it less attractive for vulture hearted companies to go there. But such efforts are spurned, even by the people who would benefit from them.
I'm leaving the you in.