Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Dear Mr. President: If you REALLY want to create American jobs. . .

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Editorials & Other Articles Donate to DU
 
Tansy_Gold Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-21-09 09:42 AM
Original message
Dear Mr. President: If you REALLY want to create American jobs. . .
and not just profits for the rich, then you are going to have to face some harsh realities AND you are going to have to lead the American public into an acceptance of those realities.

1. Allowing our manufacturing companies to move their operations into "cheap labor" countries without paying any reparations to the Americans whose jobs are erased is wrong. THIS DOES NOT CREATE AMERICAN JOBS. Again, let me reiterate, sir: If you REALLY want jobs for Americans, you have to face this reality. This is not an opinion; this is a fact. Moving jobs out of America and into Honduras or China, Vietnam or Turkey does not create jobs for Americans. I know this may be a difficult concept to grasp, but it is a fact.

2. Encouraging Americans to buy cheap throw-away merchandise that they really don't need with money they don't have is not good for the economy. I understand that this is a cornerstone of a consumer economy and the lifeblood of the advertising industry. But when people are bombarded with commercials and advertisements to buy, buy, buy, buy, buy they are often put deeply into debt which requires them to (collectively) demand higher wages and lower prices. This is not economically feasible. Our consumer economy has generated a demand for a higher and higher and higher minimum wage, but at the same time we want cheaper and cheaper and cheaper goods, which means more manufacturers are "forced" into cheap labor markets.

3. Allowing a very few people to accumulate vast amounts of wealth is destructive of a healthy economy. A healthy economy depends on the continuous circulation of wealth. If it accumulates in just a few spots, it can act exactly the way a blood clot acts on a human circulatory system. Those who are billionaires should be taxed accordingly. Those who have "unearned" income -- and by this I'm speaking primarily of capital gains but also income from rents and royalties -- should not get tax breaks for simply being wealthy enough to have unearned income.

4. Of all the categories of "unearned income," none is more "unearned" than inheritance. Those who have businesses they wish to pass on to their heirs should be able to make provisions for that transfer long before their death by bringing their heirs in as partners. This makes the inheritance "earned" rather than "unearned." But to give a large estate intact to someone who has no participatory interest in it is anathema to the American ideal. Those who have died no longer need the estate ("for their reward is in heaven") and those who inherit should either be active participants or be taxed on "unearned" income.

5. Regulation of those "industries" -- especially financial services (including banking, investing, insurance, etc.) -- that do not actively create wealth through manufacturing but rather skim off excess "profits" to the benefit of few and the burden to many is absolutely essential to the restoration of economic health in this country and therefore to the creation of jobs for Americans. This is the concept at the heart of "jobless recoveries," such as we are about to experience. Gross domestic production may be up and the stock markets showing gains, but if the wealth so produced ends up only in the hands of the already wealthy, then there is a cancer in the economic body. When you have a whole team of economic advisors whose philosophy AND actions are contrary to healthy economic policy, you should remove them and replace them with other advisors who will work for healthy change in the system.

6. The 535 legislators in Washington DC who have been elected to serve the people should be free to do so. That is, they should be free of the pressure of lobbyists who have the power to "buy" a legislator's vote on issues in which they have a vested interest. Corporations are not people and should not have a "voice" in shaping legislation to the extent that they are allowed to contribute huge sums to election campaign funds. Legislators who speak out in favor of corporate interests should be required to include a disclaimer that makes clear to the public that they have received significant sums from the industries and companies they are protecting. A violation of free speech? No, merely truth in advertising.

7. Wars are sinkholes. They suck up lives and money. The death or serious injury of a single soldier can affect dozens of lives: the immediate family, the community, the employer, to name just a few. As the US has moved over the past few decades into a two-tiered military that consists of volunteers on one hand and highly-paid private contractors on the other, the cost of war has skyrocketed. War is not healthy for humans or economies. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan MUST be wound down immediately. As truly horrifying as the prospect may be, if Afghanistan descends into chaos and bloodshed after an American withdrawal, then there is little we can do about it. If other nations are appalled, then they can join in a truly international coalition. They can put economic pressure on whatever passes for a government in Afghanistan. But leaving thousands of Americans -- military and private contractor alike -- to hold Afghanistan together at great financial and human cost to America is not the way to create jobs in America for Americans.

8. There are many ways to "create" jobs for Americans, more than I have time or space right now to detail. Throwing money, especially borrowed money, at amorphous ideas is not only not the best way to create "jobs" but it may also be the very worst thing to do. It's all too true that our national infrastructure -- roads, bridges, schools, hospitals -- need maintenance and repair and replacement. But so does our national manufacturing infrastructure. We should not be in a position where our military even considers buying ammunition from contractors who are selling old "Made in China" materiel that's been "laundered" through Albania. As long as, however, we are a nation that by our actions puts more importance in the accumulation of wealth by a few individuals than in the health of our national economy, such abuses will continue. We must do what is necessary to encourage the development and redevelopment of manufacturing in our country. If that means tariffs on certain imported goods, then we have to do it. To NOT do it is to maintain the status quo. In order to change the status quo, in order to bring back jobs, other things must change. If you only want to protect the wealthy, then continue the present course, because that is what has happened. But if you truly want to change the economy, if you really want to create good jobs for Americans in America, then you must return to the economic policies that created those jobs and nourished that economy.

9. One last thing, Mr. President. I would suggest you read an old book, Allen H. Eaton's "Handicrafts of the Southern Highlands." Published in 1937, it's a survey of the skills and products made by the Americans of Appalachia in Tennessee, Kentucky, Georgia, North and South Carolina, Virginia and West Virginia. Allow me to quote a small portion from a segment titled "Life of a Mountain Chair":


The length of service of mountain chairs varies, it would often seem, with the opinion of the informant. Some declare that they will last a lifetime, some a hundred years and others say forever. There seems to be evidence to support all claims unless it be the "forever" one, and if that is freely interpreted to imply "as long as a man lasts," that claim could likely be supported, too.

In an old home not far from White Top, Virginia, several chairs known to have been made on the place thirty-seven years ago are in prime condition, only the bottoms of oak splints having been replaced. Bud Godlove of Wardensville, Hardy County, West Virginia, one of the best known mountain craftsmen, whose father and gradnfather were chairmakers before him, says his family every day use chairs made over fifty years ago. Edward Loudermilk of Caldwell, Greenbrier, West Virginia, writes:

I make the life-time split bottom chairs. I use white tough hickory, fire-dried rounds, posts of young growth tough white oak. . . . My father taught me to make chairs when I was a boy. I have been making chairs for forty some years. . . . When a man buys chairs from me he gets what he needs and he is done buying chairs as long as he lives. . . . Nothing cross grain.



(emphasis mine)

What fueled our economic health for a while, Mr. President, was our insatiable need for the new. Unlike the mountaineers who made what they needed and made it to last, our advertising-fueled need for more and more and more created an economy that consumed itself. In order for Detroit to sell more cars, it created "planned obsolescence." We made and sold paper plates and paper napkins, throw-away plastic cups and spoons and forks. Single-use Styrofoam containers that last forever in our landfills and along our highways. Pampers, Huggies, Luvs -- the disposable diaper is now just about the only kind here is.

Unfortunately, our demand for disposables of all kinds also created "jobs," in a vicious cycle of need. The more goods we needed, the more jobs we needed, too. Not just to produce the items but to generate the wages to buy them. And always, always, always, there were the "investors" to siphon off a part of the profits. When the investors got greedy, they broke the golden goose by shipping the jobs to cheap labor markets.

But in truth unlimited economic growth is no more sustainable than unlimited biological growth. We must scale back our consumption and ramp up our production until both meet at a sustainable level. It may begin with as simple a concept as making a chair that lasts a lifetime and learning to take pride in owning such a chair rather than in showing off and then throwing away a new one year after year after year.

To restore American prosperity -- and that means the prosperity of ALL Americans, not just the rich on Wall Street -- we must and YOU must begin to understand what makes an economy healthy. None of the current policies contribute to economic health. NONE OF THEM, Mr. President. They must be changed, and some of those changes may indeed be painful for a few of your friends. But those changes will ease the pain of many many many many more Americans who put their faith in your promise of change.

Yes, Mr. President, we CAN do it, but not without your leadership and insistence that change applies to everyone, even the wealthy. This is no longer a campaign, this is an administration. Some of the work isn't fun, and not everyone is going to like what you do. But that's the nature of the job.

So if you REALLY want jobs for Americans, you're going to have to implement some of that change, not just talk about it. That's the toughest reality of all.



Sincerely,

Tansy Gold


(Disclaimer: This was originally posted as a reply in another thread. The more I thought about it, the more I decided it needed its own thread.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
midnight Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-21-09 09:58 AM
Response to Original message
1. Yes...... We cannot have a jobless recovery and expect the economy or the
citizens in this country to be able to prosper. I can imagine the elite don't want this letter to ever bend the president's ear. I hope President Obama turns this greedy train around.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
quabbin Donating Member (38 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-21-09 10:13 AM
Response to Original message
2. Jobs
Your post says it all about our jobs disaster. It is one of the most concise and beautifully written posts I've ever read on DU. I hope you have forwarded this letter to the White House.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tansy_Gold Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-21-09 03:53 PM
Response to Reply #2
6. Thank you for the compliment.
I haven't printed the letter out and actually sent it yet, but maybe I should.

Again, thank you.



TG
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Coyote_Bandit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-21-09 10:21 AM
Response to Original message
3. Ummmm......
Seems to me that the President's loyalties lie with the corporations. Jobs and meaningful access to healthcare are secondary priorities at best with the President. If that were not true then he would be trying to stimulate the creation and development of small businesses as well as implementing many of the things you list. Best I can tell he's just another frickin bought and sold corporate politician - albeit one who is going to have to work hard to earn my vote should he wish to be re-elected. I voted for change and all I got was the same old shit served in a different dish.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Enthusiast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-22-09 07:15 AM
Response to Reply #3
13. Just how would you suggest
the president stimulate the creation and development of small businesses?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Coyote_Bandit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-22-09 08:31 AM
Response to Reply #13
17. To start with
he could make the same $$$ amount of funding available for small business creation and development that he threw at the big corporations during the bailouts.

He could also make small business owners and employees available for low cost/subsidized Medicare coverage. He could make vendor volume discounting to retailers illegal so that small businesses care able to ompete on an equal footing with respect to their merchandise. And he could aggressively enforce (and perhaps urge COngress to strengthen) anti-trust legislation.

Ain't gonna fucking happen. None of it. It would make the corporate overlords who finance the campaigns unhappy. And that poses a threat to any political officeholder with a desire for position and the personal power and prosperity it brings.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tansy_Gold Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-22-09 09:45 AM
Response to Reply #17
20. Enforcing anti-trust legislation is indeed a key
But as we've seen in the health insurance debate, some trusts are more equal than others. This needs to stop.


Will it? probably not.



TG
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Enthusiast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-22-09 10:19 AM
Response to Reply #17
21. Glad I asked. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dtotire Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-21-09 10:23 AM
Response to Original message
4. We Need an Industrial Policy
It should have been started years ago.
Read today's column by Bob Herbert
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tansy_Gold Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-21-09 10:35 AM
Response to Reply #4
5. I did read it. As usual, Herbert is superb
And he made me cry. And I posted the link to his column over in another thread started by, dare I say it, a know-nothing pom-pom waver who thinks the economy is all better now because his 401k went up.

Thank you for posting Herbert. Goddess but that man is GOOOOOOOD.



TG
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BR_Parkway Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-21-09 04:46 PM
Response to Original message
7. While I firmly agree with you on everything that you wrote, I have things
to say:

1) Beyond just the income lost when jobs are shipped overseas, there are provisions in these 'free trade' agreements that require State/Federal tax dollars to be spent re-training workers who have lost their jobs because of the agreements. So not only do we lose the purchasing power in the economy from these job transfers, but the government loses both the revenue their income provided as well as additional money spent of re-training. Talk about creating negative feedback loops.

2) What can we manufacture that will last a lifetime AND keep people gainfully employed as opposed to the recent 'throwaway' society that we've just seen go in the tank? Certainly infrastructure that ends our energy independence, but what else? If I buy one car and one house in my lifetime, how will we keep enough jobs for everyone?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tansy_Gold Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-21-09 05:25 PM
Response to Reply #7
8. Not everything lasts forever.
And I don't think anyone really wants to sink into a glamourless, colorless, drab "old soviet union" lifestyle.

But when we spend less time and less money and less energy on the "essentials," we have more time and more money and more energy for the "fun" things that make life worthwhile. Art. Music. Hobbies. Doing things with the kids. (gosh, it sounds like puke family values, don't it?!) Indulging in learning for the sheer joy of learning.

We will always need replacements, and we will always need new things for new people. (Leacock's "The Man in Asbestos" isn't here yet) But we need to get away from the unsustainable "cancer" model of perpetual growth. A couple of acqaintances of mine went on a week-long motorcycle road trip a couple years ago. They took no clothes, just stopped at the Walmart nearest to the motel they were staying at each night and bought a new outfit -- from underwear on out -- for the next day. THEIR DIRTY CLOTHES, WHICH HAD BEEN WORN EXACTLY ONCE, WENT IN THE TRASH, WRAPPED IN A PLASTIC BAG SO NO ONE WOULD "STEAL" THEM. In a sense, our entire national economy has been on that kind of road trip. We need to scale back, back to a sustainable model.

And when we do that, we may find that not everyone needs to "work." Or at least not as many hours. We can go back to rewarding tasks such as care-giving and raising families and teaching and healing, all of which are not "productive" of things but rather are productive of the joy of life.

I'm very fortunate. I'm able to live quite comfortably -- at age 61 -- on a very modest income. I put in about 5-6 hours a day on my regular paying job, and the rest of my time is spent on activities I enjoy. Could I go out and get a "real" job that paid two or three or four times what I'm making? Probably, if I really wanted to put the effort into finding that job and then making myself miserable commuting to it and working at it. But I don't need all the gew-gaws and frivolities my income from that other "real" job could buy, and I wouldn't have the time to enjoy them anyway.

And I've been fortunate, too, that both of my children learned the value of, well, of value.

So it isn't impossible to live with less consumption. And it isn't impossible to be happy doing it, either.



Tansy Gold






Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mithreal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-21-09 08:18 PM
Response to Original message
9. Enthusiastic K&R
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
anonymous171 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-21-09 09:05 PM
Response to Original message
10. Totally agree. K&R. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
notesdev Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-22-09 02:15 AM
Response to Original message
11. If I could I'd rec this 'till the cows came home n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Skittles Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-22-09 02:58 AM
Response to Original message
12. please understand
it isn't just manufacturing jobs being pimped off the the cheapest overseas bidder
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tansy_Gold Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-22-09 08:09 AM
Response to Reply #12
15. You're absolutely correct and I understand that.
However, manufacturing is the foundation of ANY economy. We have to be able to MAKE THINGS.

Making things is what makes wealth. That's a basic fact of economics. Food, clothing, shelter, transportation, etc. All of these require "support" functions, everything from IT and HR to accounting and lawyering and teaching and doctoring and even governing. Without manufacturing, there is no economy.

And if the manufacturing isn't here, it will be somewhere. Somebody's gotta make the stuff we live with: furniture, shoes, pencils, tvs, computers, dog dishes, everything.

Allow me to quote again from Allen Eaton:

One economic contribution now being offered by the handicrafts which deserves wide acclaim is the making of articles for their own use by persons who have no money with which to buy them. Thousands of families have recently learned that on a small tract of land they can raise vegetables and fruit which could not be graded for market, yet which provide them with fresh food to eat at the time or to preserve for winter; likewise that they can fashion with their hands things to serve the family but which for obvious reasons would not be marketable. An example of this may be found in the southern states, where in the past few years hundreds of men and women have grown their own cotton and made excellent mattresses which they could not afford to buy. When people without money produce commodities they can use, they do not deprive manufacturers of sales but create new material wealth and often bring to themselves satisfactions which even the ability to purchase cannot match.


Ours is now a complex economy, built with a whole lot of credit and assets that have no physical presence and values that have no relationship to usefulness. But if you doubt the accuracy of my claims -- and I don't really think you do -- examine those economies that are more healthy than others and you will see that they have a firm and stable manufacturing base.

We've lost ours -- or had it given away from under us -- and unless and until we get it back, the rest of the economy, whether it's financial services, health care services, information services, or whatever, will not be able to sustain its own health. When manufacturing is strong and creates wealth and that wealth is fairly and appropriately distributed, then the economy will be healthy.

Without manufacturing, the economy cannot remain self-sustaining. Period.



Tansy Gold
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Enthusiast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-22-09 07:24 AM
Response to Original message
14. Early on, during the G W Bush
Administration, I watched an administration spokesman, a Bush economic adviser, argue the position that outsourcing manufacturing was sound policy because "all Americans" now had an interest in the stock market.

This argument was completely wrong yet now it has become part of the very fabric of economic philosophy.

I wish someone would find that little piece of video evidence of Bush's hand in the destruction of U.S. manufacturing. Not that Democrats are not culpable, they surely are. I have no idea what program it was on. I was very angry while watching it. A Democratic Party representative argued against the Bush Administration position.

Now, it appears, the Democrats have adopted the Republican position wholeheartedly. "Oh, we don't want any protectionism."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tansy_Gold Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-22-09 08:29 AM
Response to Reply #14
16. Yesterday, here on DU, there was a thread, now locked, that perfectly illustrates
that kind of logic. I won't even provide a link to it; it's locked because it became a flamefest.

What the DUer said was essentially, "My 401K has gone up in value, so Obama's policies are working perfectly and everything is fixed and the jobs are already coming back so no more complaints are allowed."

I remember a discussion in a grad school class in early 2001, so at the same time you're referencing, very early in the booosh administration, when a professor insisted that anyone who had any investment in the stock market, whether through a 401k or a mutual fund or even a company pension plan that was invested in the market, could not call themselves a socialist, that they were by definition a capitalist. He was adamant about this, almost angry, and if he was not responding to having seen the incident you're referencing, I suspect he was thinking along the same lines. But the other professor who taught the class came back with the argument used here on DU so very often: anyone who uses public roads, relies on public police and fire protection, attends or attended or (for crying out loud) teaches in an institution of public education cannot call themselves capitalists because they are benefiting from socialized public services. Understand, of course, that this dicussion took place at Arizona State University, and you'll see how tongue-tied the first prof was.

And I use that to illustrate the complexity of our economy, not only in terms of the goods and services that contribute to it, but also the mixed nature of its structure. We have socialism. We have capitalism. We have state monopolies. We have quasi-monopolies and near-monopolies. We have a thriving black market, too, and another gray market that falls somewhere in between.

The ill-health of the US economy is not "the fault" of capitalism or even corporatism; it is the fault of people who refuse to understand that actions have consequences. And by that I mean not only the boooooshes and Obamas, but the Brookses and the Waymires, the Frelinghausens and the Coles, the Ehlerts and d'Caniaris, the Olesons and the Merliens, the Wongs and the Villardos, the Liebowitzes and the Ciardinis and the Schumachers and the Smiths and the Joneses. If there are 26% who are congenital rightwing authoritarian/totalitarians, then the other 74% have to take charge. They have to understand that you cannot have a healthy economy based solely on consumption. "Protectionism" is no more radical than is wearing a helmet when you ride a motorcycle.

And that's a point we on the left side of the aisle haven't managed to get across to them. . . yet.



But some of us are trying.



Tansy Gold
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Enthusiast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-22-09 10:48 AM
Response to Reply #16
22. Thank you, Tansy_Gold.
Edited on Sun Nov-22-09 10:50 AM by Enthusiast
I'm glad someone is doing some thinking around here.

God, what a mess we're in!

I've always wanted to enact laws governing imported goods to reflect the needs of workers in the producing nations.

We need tariffs that balance the true cost of producing U.S. goods with those of our foreign competition that often enjoys a built in advantage. Sometimes the advantage is because the competition is working in a dirty, unsafe and unregulated workplace and at other times our foreign competition enjoys and advantage of socialized industry and nationalized health care.

We get our asses kicked both ways. It is almost as if there is a U.S. government/industry conspiracy to abuse the American worker.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tansy_Gold Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-22-09 11:16 AM
Response to Reply #22
23. Exactly. And we do the foreign workers no good either
As long as we keep buying, their factory owners (who are often "us") will have no incentive to improve conditions. If effect, our consumer greed is funding China's and other nations' continued slavery. We have an economic apartheid in which American workers (what's left of 'em) are protected but foreign workers are not. Hardly a "christian" value.



Tansy Gold, who has little charity toward "christians" these days
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Enthusiast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-22-09 12:03 PM
Response to Reply #23
24. Those kinds of "Christian"
values have been in operation for a long time - starting before the 'discovery' of the "new world". Exploited workers the world around are today's "redskins" and "coolies". Not much difference really.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
treestar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-22-09 08:38 AM
Response to Original message
18. As to 1, you have a problem
Just how do you stop it legally? Prohibit them from importing to the U.S.? That would wreck a lot of other people's jobs. Also, wouldn't it then be fair for foreign investors to refuse to invest here and thus never create jobs here? If the Chinese don't have our jobs then certainly we can't have anyone else's jobs, right?

As to 2, what can be done about it without offending free speech? How do we stop Americans from buying what they want to buy at the cheapest price they can find?

Number 6 - we all have the right to lobby. Why don't we just do it, too? The alternatives seem to be a problem when it comes to free speech.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tansy_Gold Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-22-09 09:07 AM
Response to Reply #18
19. In response
As to #1 -- Companies, like Whirlpool/Maytag, that move operations to another country to take advantage of cheap labor can be fined. Their products can have tariffs imposed, which makes them both less competitive with American-made products AND less profitable for the company. When the truckload of Mexican-made refridgerators crosses the border, US Customs would fill out a form and tax Whirlpool/Maytag a tariff that would bring the cost of the unit up to what it would have cost had it stayed in an American manufacturing facility. Yes, this is protectionist. Do you have a better solution to fix the problem?

As to #2 -- Public opinion is actually quite easy to manipulate. When I was growing up in the 50s and 60s, no one used seat belts in cars. Most cars didn't even have seat belts. When we bought a new 1972 Nova, the seat belt warning alarm wouldn't go off. The dealer's solution was to permanently disconnect it. "No one uses it anyway," he said nonchalantly. Now, seat belt use is almost universal because of a steady campaign of public information, indeed brainwashing if you will. The power of advertising should not be underestimated, and the power of public opinion -- which helped get McDonald's to do away with Styrofoam containers and go to the (very) slightly more eco-friendly cardboard -- should also not be underestimated. And as for keeping prices low, when the Chinese- or Mexican- or Turkish-made goods are, with tariffs, MORE expensive than American made, which do you think people will buy? Remember, too, that prices do not necessarily go down; the main incentive in moving manufacturing operations into cheap labor markets is to increase PROFITS, not decrease selling price.


I know where you're coming from. I can be pretty negative at times too, and I tend to be one of those people who looks for obstacles so that they can be prepared for them.

We don't have a "free" market, and "free speech" is limited all the time when it comes to buying things. You can't (legally) buy prescription drugs without a prescription. You can't buy liquor unless you're the proper age and it's the right time of the right day of the week. You can't (legally) buy or sell child pornography. You have to have appropriate licenses to buy guns, ammunition, explosives, certain chemicals.


As for lobbying, "we" can't lobby. We don't have the funds to do it, and we aren't in DC. Can we lobby our local governments? Sure. And we should. But most of the heavy pressure on issues of international trade and national economic policy comes from Washington, and we the people don't have a whole lot of say there. If we did, our votes for Obama and Democratic majorities in the house and senate would have sent the message that getting out of Iraq and Afghanistan, fixing the economy, universal health care, and fair taxation damn well need to be passed in the first 100 days. You see how well THAT worked.



Tansy Gold
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Karenina Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-23-09 06:25 AM
Response to Original message
25. bttt!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tansy_Gold Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-23-09 08:39 AM
Response to Reply #25
26. LoL
It took me a while to figure that one out. . .

Thanks!




TG
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JonQ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-23-09 10:38 AM
Response to Original message
27. We don't even need to focus on creating jobs to get through this
Edited on Mon Nov-23-09 10:45 AM by JonQ
this recession will eventually end.

The best thing would be to expand social services to cover the increase in unemployed, raise taxes (especially on the top earners), and figure out something to fix our health care situation that will take most of the burden off workers and employers, which will cut expenses and take away some of the incentive to outsource.

If you want to create jobs then incremental increases in construction work building needed infrastructure, power plants, and repairing older structures would be nice.

It wouldn't take trillion dollar deficits that are likely to slow recovery in the long term (we have to pay that debt off some time, and in the mean time we get to cover the interest payments).

Also doing something about illegal immigration would "create" about 12 million jobs for american citizens. Granted they aren't great jobs, but they would pay at least minimum wage which is better than nothing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tansy_Gold Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-23-09 03:29 PM
Response to Reply #27
29. The recession (?) will not end all by itself.
There are policies in place that perpetuate the "recession." Policies such as permitting Wall Street to gamble with our money. Policies such as rewarding companies that outsource manufacturing jobs.

If those policies are not reversed, even "infrastructure" jobs will not sustain the US economy. That's a BASIC, a FUNDAMENTAL. The money/taxes to fund infrastructure have to come from somewhere. Even the taxes on "the rich" have to come from somewhere. And that "somewhere" is manufacturing jobs within the defined economy.

If you're a trans/multinational corporation, you cross the boundaries and don't have to worry about the defined economy. But if you're a nation -- large or small, rich or poor, developed or "developing" -- you have to operate within the defined boundaries.

"Social services" and "unemployment compensation" and "teachers' salaries" and even "health insurance" have to be funded. The only fundamental, foundational, essential source of wealth is manufacturing. And it's not that we don't have ANY manufacturing in this country; it's that we don't have enough to sustain our economy.

This is not a recession/depression like the 1930s. This is a recession/depression where policies have been implemented that force a majority of the population of this country to mortgage their own and their children's future to put unearned cash into the hands of a very very very very few uber-wealthy indivdiuals. This is as bad as pre-revolutionary France, as bad as tsarist Russia. But those economies were contained by national boundaries; ours is not. And in order to put it back under control, we need to bring it back within the national boundaries.

Our economy will not revive if all the manufacturing jobs remain in China -- and more go there. Something has to be done to bring them back.


Tansy Gold
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Demeter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-23-09 11:30 AM
Response to Original message
28. Good Girl, Tansy! Glad You Posted It Free-Standing!
Sorry I'm too late to rec. Had a weird weekend.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed Apr 24th 2024, 06:06 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Editorials & Other Articles Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC