Comments on: Don’t Tread on U.S. Workers

By: Robt

Robt — Fri, 25 Sep 2009 07:03:54 +0000

Hopefully this is just a beginning.

I heard opposition retorting that if President Obama stays with this these american ctire companies that moved to China will be forced to move to some other country that is not being tarriffed by the U.S. so to get around this tariff.

Would liketo see more Big Gov’t watch dogs hired to scutinize this sort of free market mischief.

By: JimR

JimR — Fri, 25 Sep 2009 02:50:08 +0000

I agree completely and would add China had no chance to compete for much of anything until our tax code made it more profitable for American corporate entities to coldly calculate profits above all else and move there - until very recently we were essentially “competing” against Americans who love money over country.

It’s always been so, to a degree, but the brilliant decision by the supremes to equate money and speech let loose a veritable onslaught of tax breaks for cash.

Dan Quayle headed something as V.P. like the competitive council or something like that. They solicited companies with tax breaks to close down and move offshore, that otherwise might not have even considered it, in order to fulfill some Republican pie-in-the-sky initiative.

By: watou

watou — Fri, 25 Sep 2009 00:58:15 +0000

Any country that can slow the race to the bottom for workers is doing a good thing for the entire human race, and protecting one country’s tire industry from destruction is a step in the right direction. But instead of using the word “protectionism,” which has the ill-deserved connotation of unfair tariffs, it would be more useful to define the issue in terms of preventing unfair outcomes. When one country, through low wages, dangerous working conditions and environmental destruction, can destroy an industry in another country, the outcomes are identical to predatory dumping. Since no one can really know whether China intended to destroy the American tire industry, the focus of trade policy should be, for the U.S. or for any country, on averting the imminent danger of such an outcome.

By: marcos

marcos — Fri, 25 Sep 2009 00:50:26 +0000

Neoliberalism promised that free trade would generate as many benefits as it caused disruptions. It did not work out that way.

The fact is that the policies put forth by the neoliberals have failed us miserably and need to be demolished on the merits rather in terms of a mass fantasy. We’ve got to reject the neoliberal frame rather than continue to legitimate it by using it.

By: shekissesfrogs

shekissesfrogs — Fri, 25 Sep 2009 00:46:36 +0000

These are actually neoliberal policies. Reagan, Thatcher, Clinton were the most egregious offenders.

By: marcos

marcos — Fri, 25 Sep 2009 00:24:35 +0000

Now that the Soviet Union is gone, socialism to many people means France, and I think that many Americans would prefer 6 weeks of vacation and health care to caged death match capitalism.

By: solerso

solerso — Thu, 24 Sep 2009 23:49:44 +0000

The american model belongs to the past. the “free market” only exists within the US. and the “third world” other developed nations protect they’re interests. The american system only benefits american supply side plutocrats, capital, and only in the
realtive short term.

By: solerso

solerso — Thu, 24 Sep 2009 23:45:27 +0000

good response

By: solerso

solerso — Thu, 24 Sep 2009 23:43:58 +0000

Right. and the scary thing is that we have a long way to go (down) before some critical mass is reached and there is a popular movement to replace the system. it could be a long, long, miserable scrape.

By: JimR

JimR — Thu, 24 Sep 2009 22:20:22 +0000

Thanks, perris; it was actually posted at Watching America by Guang Ming Daily News.

So far, mine is the only comment.

I’ve been passionate about fair trade for decades, making my living in technical service on CNC machinery. The devastation I’ve seen…