What is Digg?134 Comments
- Clp727, on 11/11/2009, -25/+61Not buying American made products is what has created this mess. We have eliminated our own jobs when we bought the imported products.
- novenator, on 11/11/2009, -15/+43It is not just a matter of getting big business back on their feet, it is a matter of creating good jobs here at home. I fully support the Buy American provisions in the ARRA, despite the taint it might put on the 'global supply chain'. Further, in order to protect American workers, we need to make sure than any future 'free trade' agreements have specific labor and environmental provisions to make sure that other countries are on a level playing field with us. There is no reason to enslave American workers like the poor Chinese laborers locked into fire-prone factories that pollute terribly, just so greedy corporations can make the rich richer.
- zacharytelschow, on 11/11/2009, -12/+35You clearly don't understand the concept of comparative advantage in relation to trade.
- PandaBearShenyu, on 11/12/2009, -6/+26Protectionism totally saved the U.S. from the great depression.
OH WAIT! - lyonsban, on 11/12/2009, -3/+21You clearly don't know what opportunity cost means either. Just saying.
- Protonz, on 11/12/2009, -9/+26It's too bad that economics is not a standard class in school. Protectionism is not good for anyone's economy.
- Protonz, on 11/12/2009, -1/+18Regular workers and consumers pay 40-50% of their income in taxes (not just income tax). Of course corporations don't pay taxes, they are the ones in control of the government.
- OmicronNine, on 11/12/2009, -1/+18I had always thought that Canada was automatically included in the "buy America" thing. Our economies and fortunes are so intertwined, it seems awfully retarded for them not to be.
- Mship, on 11/12/2009, -1/+16I'm black, my wife is black, my parents are black, I have white friends, i have a few Asian friends and a few Hispanic friends. I can tell you that we all voted for Obama, and not just because he was black. The fact of the matter is Obama is more "white" then he is black if you look at his back ground. Raised by two white women and a white man. I voted for Obama because Mccain wasnt being true to his own beliefs and he picked a running mate only because of what she has between her legs and her religion.
I bet you probably think that me being black that all i do is eat fried chicken and water melon plus get government welfare all the while not taken care of my 6 kids. I say this because you base your assumption about how black people vote on stereotypes. - bdbr, on 11/12/2009, -1/+14Its not just for rewarding others. When an American worker gets his/her paycheck, a hefty chunk of that goes to pay income taxes. If that job goes overseas, that worker not only won't be generating income taxes, but may need financial aid. Of course, you'll still be paying someone who will be paying taxes...just to a government besides yours. So now your government needs more from YOU, on top of all that. Of course you're probably in no position to pay more taxes, so your government just borrows money from those countries with workers who are paying taxes, and your currency is devalued. It DOES affect you..
- SweetNeo85, on 11/11/2009, -4/+17Would you please specify what "taxing the hell out of" means. Because it was my understanding that most corporations pay ZERO in United States income taxes.
http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSN124946 ... - Garflesnarks, on 11/12/2009, -3/+16You know the Germans always make good stuff!
- Pecheckler, on 11/12/2009, -8/+20This article ignores the fact that the bill HAS created more American jobs, and also moved jobs from overseas within the U.S.
All I see here is complaining about slow progress without an insight as to the opposing viewpoint. Just a bunch massive corporations bitching about not profiting as much as they could have. Obviously the executives of these companies do not care that the bill continues to help the American economy.
By the way; I'm pretty sure every company listed in the article does the majority of their manufacturing outside of the U.S. - catvllvs, on 11/12/2009, -3/+15Hey, why don't you all write to your representative and resurrect the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930?
- Pecheckler, on 11/12/2009, -1/+12There's nothing wrong with how you feel, but this is about money that American taxpayers are paying to American companies for products and services. Foreign companies were never even brought up. So assuming you're an American, would you really agree with American companies outsourcing all of the labor required for these projects to other countries? That certainly wouldn't make sense... than the bill would do the exact opposite of what it was intended to do.
- SweetNeo85, on 11/12/2009, -1/+11Ok. Well I haven't taken economics. There's surely plenty I don't understand. Could someone please explain to me how protectionism is bad? I mean, protect means, to protect, right? Or am I oversimplifying it? How is it helpful to buy something made in China, Mexico, or India just because it is cheaper, and to lose that domestic manufacturing job in the process?
- pgriffinmonmout, on 11/12/2009, -5/+15I buy american grown weed...does that count?
- kronzdigg, on 11/12/2009, -2/+11Government ALWAYS screws up markets. ALWAYS.
- dollar0dot02, on 11/12/2009, -2/+10Sometimes I buy American; sometimes Swiss; but most of the time I buy Mozzarella.
- jerryjamesstone, on 11/11/2009, -8/+16America, ***** Yeah!
- bdbr, on 11/12/2009, -0/+7Prepare to be buried. When Diggers say, "buy American", a lot of them are talking about something besides cars. Or TVs. Or clothing. Or other things they buy.
- fuzzynyanko, on 11/12/2009, -1/+8"So if foreign governments acted like Congress, we'd be in trouble."
China already did this after we didn't put in a "Buy American" provision. - squasheddog, on 11/12/2009, -4/+11unemployment isn't the problem, lack of production is the problem. unemployment can easily be eradicated by the govt printing money and employing half the unemployed to dig holes and the other half to fill the in. production on the other hand is what is required in order to create products that america's creditors want to buy to reduce the deficit.
- murrdpirate, on 11/12/2009, -1/+7Why should a company have to build their products in the same markets in which they sell? So countries without oil should just get no oil? Countries too cold to grow fruits and vegetables don't get fruits and vegetables?
Say you have one country that is really good at producing great food, but not good at making cars and you have another country, say Germany, that is really good at making cars but not at making food. They shouldn't trade in your mind? - DangerCollie, on 11/12/2009, -1/+7I agree. The Chinese can take care of their own people. We need to make our own stuff for the same reasons we need to get off foreign oil. So we're not dependent on another country.
We're not gaining anything sending jobs overseas. It doesn't make us more competitive, it makes us poorer. - buckrogers1965, on 11/12/2009, -0/+6It is in the interest of national security to maintain enough of a manufacturing base to fight a couple of front war. We would feel stupid trying to fight against China right now, considering they make every single one of our uniforms, boots and bullets.
- Bozoar, on 11/12/2009, -1/+7That's the stupidest article I've read in the past year.
- Pecheckler, on 11/12/2009, -0/+6Popular in metro Detroit? Ha! Don't park your Nissan or Subaru in any parking lock within a 10 mile radius of a Michigan automotive plant unless your intent is to invite its malicious destruction.
- siszam, on 11/12/2009, -1/+7If the government would legalize and tax it then yes, it would count.
- ricksite, on 11/12/2009, -2/+7I have found that a lot of the best stuff is made in Japan or Germany.
- rmxz, on 11/12/2009, -0/+5What does "Buy American" even mean anymore?
Buy from companies who's headquarters is in the US?!?
Buy from companies who's shareholders are mostly in the US?
Buy from companies who do final assembly of products in the US?
Buy from companies who use components mostly made in the US?
Buy from companies who hire mostly US customer support and sales staff?
Buy from companies with products where raw materials are from US resources?
In a world where everyone outsources everything; and everyone is owned by international funds with global investors; I'm not sure anyone even knows what they mean when they say "buy american". - juankovo, on 11/12/2009, -8/+13Buy American!
Every once in a while, I see a car bearing bumper sticker, "Buy American." From what I gather, it is a popular sticker in Michigan, especially in cities like Detroit and Pontiac.
"Americans have to pull together," we are told. "They ought to help each other. If they don't stop buying those foreign imports, they're going to kill the U.S. economy." In other words, "What's good for General Motors is good for America."
More: http://www.lewrockwell.com/north/north238.html - mathcreative, on 11/12/2009, -0/+5plus if we put tariff's on foreign products. Other countries would just put tariffs on ours.
- lyonsban, on 11/12/2009, -4/+8No corporation has ever paid taxes. Costs are passed on to consumers, or through reductions in real value to stockholders, or reduced compensation for employees.
If you said "miss-regulated and over-regulated by a misguided, credulous, bunch of failed ambulance chasers in Washington whom we had to vote for because they were the only choices that didn't have a real job that November" I would have agreed with you. - tenio, on 11/12/2009, -3/+7from my understanding [taking ap econ right now]
tariffs and other forms of protectionism just prolong the amount of time and resources a country devotes to unneeded types of businesses.
Americans are better off if they make computer software then if we make hammers. We are more efficient making computer software then we are at making hammers so it would make sense if more of us made computer software.
A tariff on hammers would only prolong the amount of time we spend in the hammer-industry. Our economy and country as a whole would be better off letting the hammer-industry move to Mexico or China because it frees up those workers and resources to do other things like make computer software.
This is kind of a ramble, but basically the free market almost always works best in the allocation of resources. We should buy from the cheapest seller because they are most efficient at selling it for cheap. Tarrifs just upset this market balance and make things worse for everyone.
http://economics.about.com/cs/taxpolicy/a/tariffs. ... - eRaptor, on 11/12/2009, -0/+4@murrdpirate
To answer your question, a company should manufacture its products in the same markets it serves so that product revenues/profits reflect local costs and it's more attentive to the needs of local markets. By engaging in wage/cost arbitrage (i.e., using cheap foreign labor), companies profit initially by the wage variance but eventually collapse the very markets they're serving. You see, displacing jobs in profitable markets reduces consumer income/revenue in the same markets (e.g. current U.S. recession). Employees and consumers are not mutually exclusive entities.
Commodities (like oil, produce, etc.) and manufactured goods are VERY different. Nice "straw man" argument, by the way. Obviously, things that are unique to a market should be allowed to be sold across borders as long as prevailing safety regulations aren't circumvented.
The issue isn't whether global trade should exist, but whether the trade is mutually beneficial. If it's not, then the trading activity is destined to fail as one of the markets will eventually collapse. The issue I raised has more to do with manufacturing than commodities. - WilliamDavis, on 11/12/2009, -3/+7Too bad it can't be a standard class for politicians, along with ethics. Those idiots aren't qualified to direct anything, much less an economy.
- qwertydvorak, on 11/12/2009, -1/+5@tenio: "would be better off letting the hammer-industry move to Mexico or China because it frees up those workers and resources to do other things like make computer software."
you are assuming that people with below average iq's can make software. what we should have done is invest in better (more automated) ways of making hammers. a highly advanced production line can produce more hammers with less people.
you would still need skilled people to program the machines ( PLC's and SAP style production planning software ). you would need medium skilled people to occasionally adjust or repair the machinery. you would need lower skilled people to unload / warehouse / ship the finished product.
japan has been doing this successfully and leads the world in robotics because of it. china will not want to keep making only hammers forever. they already are moving into aviation, autos, and they are starting to really hurt the US solar manufacturers. advanced manufacturing will be the only way to compete in the future.
Good resource:
http://www.automationmag.com/ - RJ0534, on 11/12/2009, -0/+3Well if you live in the US near Kentucky then most likely you get it from there, because Kentucky is the largest grower of marijuana in the US next to California, and marijuana is Kentucky's top cash crop - which is crazy because Kentucky also has the most tobacco farms in the US, but weed is even larger than that.
- algaeturd, on 11/12/2009, -2/+5Say what you want...speculate all you want (which is what this story seems to be doing) but a nation that cannot produce its own goods or ANY goods (much less export any) is NOT a sovereign nation. It is not an independent nation, it is a DEPENDENT nation on foreign goods.
America needs to produce goods. We have been consumers and not producers and that's what created part of this bubble that just burst. - taibo, on 11/12/2009, -1/+4Thanks to other companies having access to the US market, you are now able to afford a computer to type that complaint on.
- diggdiggerid, on 11/12/2009, -9/+12I buy the best products for my needs after researching them without regard to what longitude/latitude they were created in. "Buy American" is stupid because it assumes American-made products are somehow superior to others--which is SOMETIMES, but not nearly always, the case. Just look at Hershey's "chocolate" vs chocolate from any other country for a very simple example.
Why people feel they need to reward other people for just existing in the same ten million ***** square kilometers, even though they make ***** products, is beyond me. - digitalArtform, on 11/12/2009, -3/+6Why up may actually be down.
- Heidenreich12, on 11/12/2009, -1/+4If AMERICA would make could products, I would buy them. But if you are going to make me something that isn't as good as something that is imported, why should I buy it? Its just good business. If you make a good product, i'll buy it. Don't expect me to pay for a piece of crap thats going to fall apart just because it's made in the US. Same with outsourcing. I have hired people in the US and outside the US, and most the people I hire in the US cost more, and they do a ***** job and are not motivated. It's our fault we are in the state we are.
- mikeknick, on 11/12/2009, -0/+3Read 'Rising Sun' by Michael Crichton.
Think of how many businesses are based out of Japan. It's quite scary once you think about it. Look at your motor vehicles and electronics. Then think of economic dumping. And closed economies. Business is war. You are witnessing what it can do to American made products. This is also due to the arrogance/reluctance to innovate some major products in America.
Tax-breaks encourage companies to keep operations in America versus outsourcing jobs. Someone overseas can do your job better for cheaper. Quality? Who cares if it's cheap... right? - JigoroKano, on 11/12/2009, -0/+3So you were in favor of the the removal of textile tariffs which almost overnight destroyed this country's textile industry?
The tariffs were essentially protectionism, without which the American textile industry simply could not compete with countries with undervalued currency (China). Lot's of jobs lost and in return we can all save a few pennies on our next cotton t-shirt.
Personally, I think there is a fine line between using protectionism to counter trade asymmetries and abusing the concept to your own detriment like Brazil does. - stubear, on 11/12/2009, -1/+4@tenio,
"Our economy and country as a whole would be better off letting the hammer-industry move to Mexico or China because it frees up those workers and resources to do other things like make computer software."
This assumes that it's easy and cost effective to retrain those workers. The problem with our economy right now is we're not retraining the workers, we're offloading the cost to them when they don't have the money to afford reeducation because they just lost their hammer making job and have other bills to pay. Not to mention that the managers hiring the software developers would rather hire a young kid straight out of school and pay him next to nothing then hire an older ex-hammer manufacturer who took night classes to become a computer programmer.
Not to mention the potential losses incurred when shifting to an idea based economy. Hammers can't be digitally copied across the internet at will. You'll notice that the companies who can afford to weather the storm the longest are those who have been in it the longest. Small start-ups can't afford to sustain intellectual property theft without it affecting their business. We need hammer manufacturing jobs still and they can be cost effective in the U.S. Look at how well auto manufacturing plants fro Saturn and some of the Japanese auto manufacturers are doing. These same jobs shipped to Mexico returned products like the Geo Metro and Ford Fiesta. Where are those products? One of these days economics students are going to learn the value of quality but until then I guess we're stuck in their world of the bottom line being sacred, damn all else. - JustChillin12, on 11/12/2009, -3/+6It doesn't matter if Americans are buying American products. It matters if they are being produced here for jobs and decrease the trade deficit.
- quarando, on 11/12/2009, -1/+4Perhaps you should do some basic research on economic history then. Every industrialized country in the world has developed with strong protectionist policies. The US continues to subsidize and protect markets it can't compete in internationally, such as agriculture.
Too many people here believe what you learn in economics class or read in the WSJ is some kind of a science. It isn't, it is mostly ideology with only a very loose connection to how the economy actually works(which no one understands).
The US and other western countries only support free markets in industries they are well positioned to dominate. In the ones they aren't, they work hard to undermine markets and protect domestic industry. Protectionism is actually essential to maintaining a strong industrial economy. - taibo, on 11/12/2009, -1/+3If you are doing a headstand, then what you see as 'up' is really 'down'.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 135 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is