The idealism of global economics... is killing us.

[Valde Bovis]

Take a step back for a second, dont look at who wrote it, just soak up the words... agree? disagree? fine, either way, but give the article a decent read before you comment.​

Who killed General Motors?​

[FONT=VERDANA, ARIAL]by Patrick J. Buchanan
December 12 [FONT=VERDANA, ARIAL], 2005[/FONT]

Willys built the jeeps that carried Ike's armies across Europe. Ford built the Sherman tanks. Packard made the engines for JFK's PT boat and for the P-40s of Claire Chennault's Flying Tigers. Studebaker built the Weasel armored personnel carrier. Chevrolet built the engines for the Flying Boxcar, Buick for the B-24 Liberator, Oldsmobile for the B-25 Mitchell Col. "Jimmy" Doolittle flew in his "Thirty Seconds Over Tokyo" raid in 1942.
Nash-Kelvinator built the Navy Corsair and Hudson the Helldiver that succeeded the Dauntless dive-bomber that sank four Japanese carriers at Midway. But no company matched the contributions to victory of General Motors, the greatest company of them all.
Now, most of those companies with the legendary names – Packard, Hudson, Studebaker, Nash, Oldsmobile – are gone. Of the "Big Three" that survive, Chrysler is German-owned, and Ford and GM are bleeding, and their debt has fallen to junk-bond status. Delphi, the auto-parts supplier for GM, just declared bankruptcy.
Thanksgiving week – its share of the U.S. market down from 46 percent, 30 years ago, to 26 percent today – GM announced the closing of nine more American plants and the dismissal of 30,000 more workers.
Many reasons are given for the decline of the U.S. auto industry. The Volkswagen "Beetle" that invaded America in the late 1950s, the Toyotas and Hondas that followed, the Korean Kias coming in today are, we are told, cheaper and more reliable, and deliver better mileage. But there is a more basic reason for America's industrial decline.
A sea change has taken place in the mindset of our elites. The economic patriotism of Hamilton and Henry Clay, of Lincoln and T.R. and, yes, of the Robber Barons of the Gilded Age, who forged America into the mightiest industrial machine the world had ever seen, is dead.
To the economic patriots of the Old Republic, trade policy was to be designed to benefit, first, the American worker. They wanted American families to have the highest standard of living on earth and U.S. industry to be superior to that of any and all nations. If this meant favoring American manufacturers with privileged access to U.S. markets and keeping foreign goods out with high tariffs, so be it.
But that Hamiltonian America-First vision that guided us for 150 years no longer informs our politics. Economic patriotism is dead.
For the Davos generation of leaders puts the Global Economy first. They are all good internationalists. If it's good for the Global Economy, it must be good for America. Theirs is a quasi-religious faith in that same free-trade ideology for which Hamilton, Clay, Lincoln and T.R. had only spitting contempt.
And like Marxists who refuse to question their dogmas, despite manifest signs of failure, our free-traders believe that everything that is happening to America has to be happening for the best.
That U.S. manufacturing that once employed a third of our labor force now employs perhaps 10 percent does not matter. That the most self-sufficient nation in history, which produced 96 percent of all that it consumed, now depends on foreigners for a fourth of its steel, half its autos and machine tools, two-thirds of its textiles and apparel, and most of its cameras, bicycles, motorcycles, shoes, televisions, videotape machines, radios, etc. does not matter.
That tens of thousands of foreign workers are brought in each year by U.S. employers to take high-tech jobs, that U.S. factories are shut down daily here while opening in China, that professional work is being outsourced to India, that we borrow $2 billion a day to finance consumption of foreign goods – none of this matters. The nation does not matter. The country does not matter. For we are all now in a Global Economy.
And so, as the jobs and skills of U.S. manufacturing workers disappear, and the taxes they pay into Social Security, Medicare, and federal and state governments fall, and the cost of their pensions is passed on to taxpayers, and the government goes deeper into debt to cover rising social costs corporations used to carry, other countries quietly observe.
Fifty years ago, a trade deficit of 6 percent of GDP, a hemorrhaging of manufacturing jobs and a growing dependence on foreign nations for the vital necessities of our national life would have been taken as signs of the decline and fall of a great nation.
Our elites tell us that we have simply not read Thomas Friedman, we do not understand that the old Hobbesian world is history, that we have entered a new era of interdependence, where democracy and free markets will flourish and usher us all into a golden age – and we Americans will lead the way.
If they are right, we are Cassandras. If they are wrong, they are fools who sold out the greatest country in all history for a mess of potage.

© 2005 Creators Syndicate, Inc.
[/FONT]

 

[CoralRose]

2005, huh? Sounds like it could have been written last week.

Economic patriotism is dead.

Somewhere in the process, we Americans decided that buying items produced overseas is chic and dare I say 'better' then what could be produced here in the US. I believe we got complacent. If in fact that is true, that foreign-made products are better, then we should have improved our manufacturing process and the quality of those goods. We didn't care apparently and let the consumer go elsewhere. Now we're paying the price.

 

[Dana]

I don't buy the whole "better" thing considering most of the overseas apparell market are probably produced in sweat shops and electronics are probably pumped out by workers who make a buck a day.

 

[Valde Bovis]

2005, huh? Sounds like it could have been written last week.



Somewhere in the process, we Americans decided that buying items produced overseas is chic and dare I say 'better' then what could be produced here in the US. I believe we got complacent. If in fact that is true, that foreign-made products are better, then we should have improved our manufacturing process and the quality of those goods. We didn't care apparently and let the consumer go elsewhere. Now we're paying the price.

Well- consider in the same time frame as this shift to 'globalism' occured, the mindless agenda of the far left conservationists shut down maufacturing in the US by using th EPA to prevent industialization.

I dont think this was an 'oversight'- I think this was purposeful and calculated.

 

[Minor Axis]

Considering human nature and the tendency of stabbing each other in the back, you can partially thank large international, many of them U.S. based corporation for trying to ship every job they can out of the country to save on labor cost, and to make a better product? Hell no, to pocket more of the profits. Why should they care about where the economy is in 10 years, as many of them will have bailed with their riches and SCREW YOU U.S. workers, who have the vile nerve to ask for a livable wage.

 

[Minor Axis]

Well- consider in the same time frame as this shift to 'globalism' occured, the mindless agenda of the far left conservationists shut down maufacturing in the US by using th EPA to prevent industialization.

I dont think this was an 'oversight'- I think this was purposeful and calculated.

I'm sorry but you have quite the agenda in this forum. Corporations love having their manufacturing overseas.

 

[Valde Bovis]

I don't buy the whole "better" thing considering most of the overseas apparell market are probably produced in sweat shops and electronics are probably pumped out by workers who make a buck a day.

Interesting- so the quality of the garment is not just a matter of its materials, construction and duarability, but of who makes it and thier economic stability.

 

[Valde Bovis]

Considering human nature and the tendency of stabbing each other in the back, you can partially thank large international, many of them U.S. based corporation for trying to ship every job they can out of the country to save on labor cost, and to make a better product? Hell no, to pocket more of the profits. Why should they care about where the economy is in 10 years, as many of them will have bailed with their riches and SCREW YOU U.S. workers, who have the vile nerve to ask for a livable wage.

Something caused them to shift, it wasnt just that they could make more money over seas, there was a push forr them to leave, the 1970's produced the EPA- when they began to gain power, and regulate businesses- munufacturing found thier reason to leave, the government found thier reason to increase taxes to corps and the businesses slowly said screw you- now I'm gonna go get mine.

I dont fully disagree, many of them are greedy, no doubt, but not all, many were just pushed out to survive.

Posted by Minor Axis- I'm sorry but you have quite the agenda in this forum. Corporations love having their manufacturing overseas.

MA- Im not a repub or party line guy, so please in the future skip the assumptions and just respond to what I post ok? That will keep us from going off on tangents and chasing rabbits.

 

[Minor Axis]

Interesting- so the quality of the garment is not just a matter of its materials, construction and duarability, but of who makes it and thier economic stability.

It includes a moral standard. Many of the conservatives and those in this forum are SO WORRIED about the World Court, Global Economy, and loss of national sovereignty, you'd think they would want the U.S. to function as a large family or a team. Wrong! It's every person for themselves as far as they are concerned and screw the majority of the people who are the working class/ former middle class citizens. At that rate, if their view was adopted, might as well have a world government. You'd have just as good a chance at getting a fair shake.

 

[Minor Axis]

Something caused them to shift, it wasnt just that they could make more money over seas, there was a push forr them to leave, the 1970's produced the EPA- when they began to gain power, and regulate businesses- munufacturing found thier reason to leave, the government found thier reason to increase taxes to corps and the businesses slowly said screw you- now I'm gonna go get mine.

I dont fully disagree, many of them are greedy, no doubt, but not all, many were just pushed out to survive.

Well that is your opinion. I'll tell you for a fact no citizen want dirty air, dirty water, or to be stricken by industrial pollution and to blame the EPA is disingenuous. Free trade deals like NAFTA are simply a job exportation treaty so corporations can avoid having to deal with the real costs of manufacturing while dramatically increasing their profits by shipping jobs to countries with practically no environmental laws or labor standards. As long as the playing field is 80% slanted, Free Trade Agreements are a scam foisted on worker in developed countries for the sake of corporate profits. Typically conservatives are so worried about corporate profits they are more than willing to sell their souls in the name of profits. Many of them also view the environment as a cross between a commodity to be used up and a large toilet bowl and that is ok as long as the toilet bowl is in some 3rd world country and not in their back yards. To be really responsible takes a world view. This is where we live. Lets treat it as such and not a glorified out house.

MA- Im not a repub or party line guy, so please in the future skip the assumptions and just respond to what I post ok? That will keep us from going off on tangents and chasing rabbits.

Fair enough. You may not be a "Republican" but you sure have a view point that meshes nicely with them.

 

[Valde Bovis]

It includes a moral standard. Many of the conservatives and those in this forum are SO WORRIED about the World Court, Global Economy, and loss of national sovereignty, you'd think they would want the U.S. to function as a large family or a team. Wrong! It's every person for themselves as far as they are concerned and screw the majority of the people who are the working class/ former middle class citizens. At that rate, if their view was adopted, might as well have a world government. You'd have just as good a chance at getting a fair shake.

It doesnt have to include a moral standard though- at one time in this country our moralism was based on giving to charity rather than securing someone elses living by buying a product that has a manufacturing system whereby there is a 'living wage' for labor.

I dont want a world government and having a world government does mean we give up our soveringty and our consitutional rights, the internationl laws that exist and the orgs that dictate them do not allow for freedom like the constitution gurantees- Im not wiling to do that. Are you willing to give up any or all of your right s to a global system?

Thats not a fair shake at all, its a far cry from a fair shake.

I dont mind recognizing thier rights, but I'm not willing to give mine up to support them, on the other hand I dont mind helping them to fight for thier own rights to be recognized.

 

[CoralRose]

Considering human nature and the tendency of stabbing each other in the back, you can partially thank large international, many of them U.S. based corporation for trying to ship every job they can out of the country to save on labor cost, and to make a better product? Hell no, to pocket more of the profits. Why should they care about where the economy is in 10 years, as many of them will have bailed with their riches and SCREW YOU U.S. workers, who have the vile nerve to ask for a livable wage.

Don't you think consumer demand for more affordable (read that as 'cheaper') products had anything to do with it?

 

[Valde Bovis]

Well that is your opinion. I'll tell you for a fact no citizen want dirty air, dirty water, or to be stricken by industrial pollution and to blame the EPA is disingenuous. Free trade deals like NAFTA are simply a job exportation treaty so corporations can avoid having to deal with the real costs of manufacturing while dramatically increasing their profits by shipping jobs to countries with practically no environmental laws or labor standards. As long as the playing field is 80% slanted, Free Trade Agreements are a scam foisted on worker in developed countries for the sake of corporate profits.

Fair enough. You may not be a "Republican" but you sure have a view point that meshes nicely with them.

I agree with you concerning NAFTA- that was a bad treaty- big mistake. but not for the reasons you state- Im not for free trade- Im for balanced trade.

I think the EPA so long as they operate under real science, not junk science, and political agenda is a good idea- but it, like many other government agencies have been taken over by liberal agendas, and not real science.

I am ultra conservative- even far more to the right than the republicans, I'm a constitutionalist with an agenda to have as little government involvement as is absolutely necessary to preserve life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I am a staunce advocate of protecting the innocent and severly punishing the guilty. I think the basis of goverment is to do just that in essence reward good people and punish evildoers.

 

[Valde Bovis]

Don't you think consumer demand for more affordable (read that as 'cheaper') products had anything to do with it?

I think your right, overall folks just try to get a cheap deal on a product they can afford-

 

[CoralRose]

I think your right, overall folks just try to get a cheap deal on a product they can afford-

It's the WalMart effect.

 

[Minor Axis]

Don't you think consumer demand for more affordable (read that as 'cheaper') products had anything to do with it?

Well if you explained to the average consumer that to get their cheap foreign made products they would have to watch their standard of living sink 50% or more what would they choose? What would you choose? In the end, they come out behind and corporate management at least the upper levels come out ahead.

Corporations say "our customers want less expensive products". To be fair, their only focus is to make money, and hopefully be moral in the process, but this is clearly asking too much at least as far as corporate leadership is concerned in the last 30 years. (I'm talking about large international corporations). This is a case, where you need a government who looks at the economy and realizes that the policy of wholesale moving jobs out of the country is bad policy for the economy and bad for the majority of citizens.

You can't have ultra high profits and still pay people a reasonable wage IMO. There needs to be balance and clearly any semblance of balance that existed in the 1950s is long gone. And what happens when you no longer have a viable customer base because we are all working minimum wage jobs? Yes that is an exaggeration but I'm making a point. Take it to an extreme and most average folks will loose out. I think Obama realizes that. Under Republicans/conservatives, the only real focus is the health of corporations, without any real concern about the welfare of workers, as they are viewed as just the drones who should be happy to scrape by with any kind of a shit job they can get (I'm refering to pay). And keep in mind that EVERY labor law passed, something that benefits workers and has allowed them to live productive and happy lives, every one of them were passed by liberals. You'll never hear of a conserative chewing their nails worrying about labor, unless they are worried about people asking for higher wages.

The problem is getting a government in place who is effective at really representing all of the people and not just the privileged. Can Obama do that? Maybe, maybe not, but I know under the likes of a George Bush, you little worker, had better keep your mouth shut and know your place at the bottom of the heap. We used to have a healthly Middle Class with the ability to drive the economy, that has mostly evaporated.

Globalization which can also be argued as a natural process is to blame. As the playing field slowly levels, workers in developing nations will reap a windfall, and workers in developed countries will take it in the shorts. BOHICA...

It's the WalMart effect.

Historically Walmart has been one of the primary forces behind moving their suppliers manufacturing facilities overseas. Do you remember long ago Walmarts "Made in America" campaign? That was until Walton's children got hold of the business. Think about this, Walmart the biggest most profitable U.S. corporation. And when Minnesota was going to publish which corporations had the highest percentage of full time workers enrolled in the state health program, Walmart sent lawyers to Minnesota to try to get the state not to publish it. Care to guess why? Does greedy bastards ring a bell?

 

[CoralRose]

For the record, I can't stand WalMart and refuse to shop there. As one that works in HR, their labor practices make me ill. But you sure don't see folks protesting outside their door very much, do you? No, because even though the practicies are illegal, the consumer still gets their 'cheap' goods.

I think Obama realizes that. Under Republicans/conservatives, the only real focus is the health of corporations, without any real concern about the welfare of workers, as they are viewed as just the drones who should be happy to scrape by with any kind of a shit job they can get (I'm refering to pay). And keep in mind that EVERY labor law passed, something that benefits workers and has allowed them to live productive and happy lives, every one of them were passed by liberals. You'll never hear of a conserative chewing their nails worrying about labor, unless they are worried about people asking for higher wages.

I don't know about that. It doesn't look like the corporations are looking very healthy to me. And that decline didn't just start since Jan when Obama took over.

 

[Minor Axis]

For the record, I can't stand WalMart and refuse to shop there. As one that works in HR, their labor practices make me ill. But you sure don't see folks protesting outside their door very much, do you? No, because even though the practicies are illegal, the consumer still gets their 'cheap' goods.

It's kind of self fulfilling. You may have always been at the bottom, or recently arrived at the bottom, that is all many can afford so Walmart will do a rousing business.

I don't know about that. It doesn't look like the corporations are looking very healthy to me. And that decline didn't just start since Jan when Obama took over.

One of my points which I may have overlooked in this disucssion is that business practices of late have not been focused on long term sustainability but short term profits that benefit only those at the top. The rest of us are along for the ride.