Obama supporters. I have one question

stdreb27

Active Member
1. Why companies are moving over seas?
2. Is outsourcing really bad for the country as a whole?
As an international Business major and an economics Major, this is a topic that recieved much heated debate in my classes. And good debate either way.
Why companies are moving overseas?
There are several factors boiling back down to one cause, Cost. It has become cheaper to produce a good overseas then ship it back to the USA then to produce the exact same good in the USA. Why you might ask, there are some non-controllable factors such as technology. But the majority of them are socio/political factors.
·Downward Pressure on Prices
·Cost of Labor
·Cost associated with Government regulation
·Cost associated with Green Movement
·Taxes
In today’s American market we are ever more price conscience. The most successful retail models no longer focus on service but on cost control. The American people, you, me, and your neighbor shop for the lowest price with little regard for service provided along with the product. We no longer by durable products, but disposable ones. If something breaks we no longer go to a repair shop and have it repaired but toss it and go buy a new one. The market (being you and me) has evolved into a place where price is the deciding factor in a purchase. Thus to be competitive in our quazi-capitalistic markets, manufacturers and retailers are forced to minimize costs. From new logistical strategies, lower quality goods to labor we are seeing costs cut everywhere. This phenomenon has lead to increasing pressure to lower costs.
Today in the USA we have a high cost of labor compared to many non-industrialized labor. Fortunately we are the most productive work force on the planet, but many companies still feel that this is not worth the higher costs associated with our labor force. Lets face it there are some companies that have set up systems due to their own bureaucracy or unions have overpaid for manufacturing jobs. When someone is paid $70,000 dollars to assemble a TV, or companies pay workers who are no longer producing, we are going to have a market failure (controls in the market don’t work no matter who imposes them). And this is what you are seeing in places like Michigan. It is hard to compete with someone from China who is willing to do the work for a fraction of the price. (Now at this point you can go argue about the fairness of the difference in wages, but that is an entirely different subject with a multitude of different views and whole books have been written on the subject. But lets keep in mind which party granted China the Most Favored Nation Status which basically eliminated all barriers of trade with China)
In addition to having to deal to compete with workers willing to work for pennies on the dollar, companies also have to jump through all kinds of government regulations regarding labor, the environment, possibly government mandated healthcare, corporate taxes. This all adds to the cost of the product that you pick up off the shelves. And the ever price conscience American consumer is forcing companies to lower costs in an attempt to lower prices.
Looking at the whole picture it outsourcing may be good for the consumer. There is little argument within the economic community that prices would be higher with purely American made products. Today if you do find an American made product it usually comes at a premium. But lower prices that have resulted from lower costs, of foreign made goods dollar goes farther. The real question is does the cost associated with outsourcing, (pockets of now unemployed workers) outweigh the distributed savings that we experience with foreign made products. Using economic models it does.
 

stdreb27

Active Member
3. What are the current employment numbers?
4. Is outsourcing really a problem?
The argument is that we are loosing jobs to foreign markets. But are we? If we look back to 1976 long before the days of serious outsourcing our unemployment rate was over 8%. But today it is below 5%. Keep in mind that is a percentage based on population, meaning that we have had wonder job growth during this period of outsourcing. So statistically we have not seen any overall job loss due to outsourcing. That begs the question, what are we as a whole worried about? Sure certain jobs may be lost to overseas markets, but new different jobs are being created at a much faster rate than were lost.
The loss incurred by outsourcing is a localized to the area around the plant, mill, or wherever the layoffs have occurred. But we as a whole have benefited by lower prices compared to what we would have seen from that company had they not moved their employment centers. Another idea to float out there is who is to say these same companies would be in business today if they had not cut their costs by outsourcing. They still maintain workforces in the USA and if these companies were squeezed out of the markets by foreign competition then that workforce would also be unemployed.
This leaves us with two options one we close our borders to foreign trade. Or we simply adapt to our ever changing economy. The problem with closing our borders is that it would create a “trade war.” And we would have out products shut out of foreign countries as well. So every domestically produced good that is exported would no longer be needed. Thus we would experience shrinkage resulting in widespread job loss.
We need only to look at Cuba, or North Korea for prime examples of closed economies.
Which brings me to the piece of Obama’s policy you pointed. He states that he is going to close corporate tax “loopholes.” Which is a tax hike, increasing prices. Which as established earlier is a factor in moving your company overseas. So to discourage this he is suggesting that we give tax breaks to companies who stay here. (In economics one bad piece of regulation coupled with another regulation to counteract the effects of the bad regulation make a right, but why not just not have the bad regulation?) And penalizing companies who leave anyway. Depending on the severity of the penalty that will encourage companies to incorporate overseas.
So you see Rylan there is an educated opinion to my very negative views to the portion of Obama’s policy. Why would it work?
 

stdreb27

Active Member
Originally Posted by phelpz
http:///forum/post/2494452
I was kinda torn on who I would be voting for this coming election.
Then Nader threw himself into the mix.
Now I know exactly who I'm wasting my vote on.
Vote for nader, the future of America may rest in your hands.
 

phelpz

Member
I actually did write him in last election.
There was no one else worth voting for last time around.
I really dont understand why some people are against having a third party. We didnt have Republicans til Linoln.
 

reefraff

Active Member
When the democrat party loses again they will just blame poor old Ralph. You would think they would get the clue.
72 Ran ultra lib McGovern. Result, historic landslide in favor of a very unlikable incumbent
76 Run "conservative" southern governor and win.
80 "Conservative" southern governor turns out to be a liberal and loses re-election bid
84 Run Mainstream liberal against very popular incumbent. Close but no cigar.
88 Run Left wing loon, gets head handed to him with tank helmut still on it.
92 run southern moderate governor and wins against incumbent.
96 Moderate incumbent pulled to the right by republican congress in 95, easy win against boring candidate
2000 Run former moderate turned environmental wack job, gets beat despite the press attempt to paint a rosey picture of an economy headed into recession allowing said loser to run on a record of a strong economy
2004 Run liberal traitor. Get beat
2008 run inexperienced left wing extremist, lose again.
 

stdreb27

Active Member
Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/2494478
As for this concept.
What really needs to be asked is,
1.Why companies are moving over seas?
2.Is outsourcing really bad for the country as a whole?
3.What are the current employment numbers?
4.Is outsourcing really a problem?
So Rylan to sum it up, I personal opinion based on the education I recieved as a graduate with an Economics and Internation Business degree, is that companies are moving overseas because it is too expensive to do business here. They believe that the costs of employment maybe worth it but government controls (regulations) for labor, taxation, and the environment make it more economically viable. Thus when a candidate runs on a platform of MORE GOVERNMENT controls, and higher taxes, this will be counter productive, the owners of the business will still make money somewhere else, while the unintended consequences are unemployment for the "average" person that obama claims to be advocating for.
Outsourcing on a whole is not bad for America, we clearly see job growth during the period of outsourcing, as well as lower prices for consumer goods.
So these keynesian quazi-protectionist policies end up hurting the very people they are trying to protect.
 

zman1

Active Member
Originally Posted by stdreb27 http:///forum/post/2494690
"I personal opinion based on the education I recieved as a graduate with an Economics and Internation Business degree...."
I would like someone of your vast economic background to weigh in on Deficit spending and National debt.
1. What the Pros and Cons are short and long term for all of us.
2. Also, how to reduce BOTH.
3. What an effective President must do, since the budget proposal starts and ultimately ends with the signing and approval by the President.
https://forums.saltwaterfish.com/t/307313/republican-vs-democrat/60#post_2482506
From the link
"I never understood the line that Democrats are tax and spend and that implies Republicans aren't tax and spend, but just spend. The following graph shows the budgets approved by presidents of the yearly budgets and national debt. "Black" are Republican Presidents and "Green" are Democratic presidents. Both budgets and national debt soaring are tied to Republican presidents. I haven't tied the ruling congressional parties during the timeframes, but the president if effective, should be able to influence the spending of congress, correct? Otherwise, I don't want to hear it from the presidential candidates..."
 

stdreb27

Active Member
Originally Posted by zman1
http:///forum/post/2494833
I would like someone of your vast economic background to weigh in on Deficit spending and National debt.
https://www.saltwaterfish.com/vb/show...6&postcount=72
If you're looking to assign blame that is a political not a economic question. Clearly we are spending too much. We can't spend more than we bring it, and this practice is all to common in our society. And this is both a Republican as well as a Democratic problem. I'm not willing to credit Clinton for a surplus do you not remember the Republican Congress shutting down the Government a couple times when debated with Clinton about the budget. And nor am I entirely willing to saddle Bush with the current spending. I feel that Bush in an attempt to "reach out to democrats" he left behind some truely conservative principles. And has emulated some more liberal spending practices.
If you looking to whine about you getting to keep your money in the form of Bush tax cuts. Since the tax cuts government revenue has increased consistantly. Corporate tax revenue based on a percentage of GDP has doubled, while GDP has consistantly grown from around 6% to 14%. So these percentage cuts to the "evil" corportation has actually secured higher actual income for the federal government. And lets not forget the denominator was increasing during this time as well. And this is also representative of the individual tax payer as well.
The problem is that conservativism is a whole process you can't just pick and choose what you use. You can't choose lower taxes then increase spending. And expect this to work, and unfortunately the Republicans in power have failed to reign in spending. This is due to a multitude of factors. And they are highly debatable.
That is what i think about the national debt, now how this relates to our candidates. So how can I vote for a candidate who is promising more spending and huge new federal programs, such as universal healthcare that both liberal candidates are promoting. To argue that Democrats are the fiscally conservative party takes some convienient statistics that require serious streatch to attributed to their party, and require a suspension of the historical fact and their massive spending initiatives to accept.
 

stdreb27

Active Member
Originally Posted by zman1
http:///forum/post/2494833
I would like someone of your vast economic background to weigh in on Deficit spending and National debt.
1. What the Pros and Cons are short and long term for all of us.
2. Also, how to reduce BOTH.
3. What an effective President must do, since the budget proposal starts and ultimately ends with the signing and approval by the President.
https://www.saltwaterfish.com/vb/show...6&postcount=72
From the link
"I never understood the line that Democrats are tax and spend and that implies Republicans aren't tax and spend, but just spend. The following graph shows the budgets approved by presidents of the yearly budgets and national debt. "Black" are Republican Presidents and "Green" are Democratic presidents. Both budgets and national debt soaring are tied to Republican presidents. I haven't tied the ruling congressional parties during the timeframes, but the president if effective, should be able to influence the spending of congress, correct? Otherwise, I don't want to hear it from the presidential candidates..."
I will wholly and totally blame bush for the current budget deficit, if you will correctly totally lay the stagflation and serious economics problems of late 70's on Jimmy carter and the democratically lead congress.
 

1journeyman

Active Member
Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/2494900
... You can't choose lower taxes then increase spending. ....
Exactly.
We need to cut pork projects and earmarks (something Pelosi said she would do if she was Speaker of the House
) eliminate crazy subsidies, eliminate the hundreds of millions of dollars of waste (FEMA, et al), and get the Federal Government back to doing it's job as outlined by the Constitution. Democracy cannot work if everyone expects the Fed. to be a giant safety net.
 

zman1

Active Member
Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/2494900
If you're looking to assign blame that is a political not a economic question. The problem is that conservativism is a whole process you can't just pick and choose what you use. You can't choose lower taxes then increase spending.

I was just looking for your thoughts specifically on the items 1-3
Should we be concerned? If I ran my personal finances this way I would be bankrupted and sleeping under bridges.
1. What the Pros and Cons are short and long term for all of us.
2. Also, how to reduce BOTH.
3. What an effective President must do, since the budget proposal starts and ultimately ends with the signing and approval by the President.
I agree you can't spend more than you take in, which is a problem for both parties. I was just hoping someone could tell us the impact. I guess we all want to avoid it. If you look at the parites in the House, Senate and Executive, none seem any better than the other. The chart was adjusted for inflation.
I have looked at the majority parties during periods, none seems to be able to truly control spending and revenues.
Period-- Increase/decrease from prior period --- Control of the branches
_____Debt
Averages
81-87 +67% R2 D1
88-95 +43% R1 D2 - I split this out 88-93
88-95 +10% R0 D3 - I split this out 93 -95
96-00 -2% R2 D1
01-05 +30% R3 D0
2006 +3% R3 D0
2007 +3% R1 D2
 

stdreb27

Active Member
I would like someone of your vast economic background to weigh in on Deficit spending and National debt.
1. What the Pros and Cons are short and long term for all of us.
There aren't any legitamate pros to our current spending practices. The left will argue that the money is spent for the "greater good." The cons are long term, you can't spend money you don't have. The govenment will take money out of your and my wallet to pay for the interest on the debt. And any excuse for the government to take money out of my wallet is a bad excuse. Is we have less money fueling our consumer economy and more money paying interest it is entirely possible for us to experience shrinkage.
2. Also, how to reduce BOTH.
Right now you politically cannot. If a politicial attempted to lower the the projected growth of the government he will be hung by the nearest tree, look at Bush and Social Security. He didn't propose any cuts, he just proposed giving the American citizen an option of privatizing 1% of his social security contributions. With the growth budgeted in for social security, the actual dollar amount of the budget for social security in the traditional sense would have been higher than the year before. But the democrats got out the rope found the tree and Bush backed down.
On a theortical level, supply line veto, (Regan and Clinton supported this measure.) Ending baseline budgeting. But this is a drop in the barrel to the bigger problems of our ballooning entitlement program. And touching that has proven to be political suicide.
3. What an effective President must do, since the budget proposal starts and ultimately ends with the signing and approval by the President.

If I knew, and I was 35, I'd be running.
"I never understood the line that Democrats are tax and spend and that implies Republicans aren't tax and spend, but just spend. The following graph shows the budgets approved by presidents of the yearly budgets and national debt. "Black" are Republican Presidents and "Green" are Democratic presidents. Both budgets and national debt soaring are tied to Republican presidents. I haven't tied the ruling congressional parties during the timeframes, but the president if effective, should be able to influence the spending of congress, correct? Otherwise, I don't want to hear it from the presidential candidates..."

Corrrect me if I'm wrong, but it might have something to do Wilson being President when the 16th ammendment was ratified, or it might be the fact that the democrats under FDR inacted the first major entitlement program called the "new deal." Or it might be that today both Democratic are proposing massive programs with barily lip service to solvency. Or flawed solvency plans. (We have already discussed how increasing tax rates do not nessararily mean higher tax revenues) It is time for a reality check these plans are going to cost as much as social security, or welfare.
 

bdhutier

Member
As for impact, I'm really nrevous about this one...
As of mid-2006, China owned $321B of our $8.3T in debt. As our largest lender, China could induce an American economic meltdown if things got too hairy between us. The problem is, now that we're in their hold, do we really think (even if the govt had the discipline/fortitude to balance the budget and pay off the debt) they're going to just let us? What do you think China would do when they saw Washington cutting the economic apron-strings?
 

stdreb27

Active Member
Concievably as long as entities will still lend money we can continue borrowing at these rediculous rates. We aren't going to default on our loans any time soon. And even if we did, how are they going to make us pay? We will win any war that the democrats say we may win. The problem is this isn't an immediate problem. So why would a politicial end his career for the better good? These people we have up there are not boyscouts.
(but now you are going into poli sci)
 

zman1

Active Member
Political suicide would be to promote spending cuts and raise taxes to start buying down debt long tern and get on the correct side of the line. Since everyone is impacted by inflation regardless of economic station in life. harder on some than others. Maybe it's just the Midwest, everything related to FCS (food, clothing, shelter) has gotten much tougher. Small business is getting hit too, even with passing the cost on, less business is a bottomline impactor. I don't have the answers either but enjoyed your perspective, thanks.
 

1journeyman

Active Member
Zman, I think your observations are more in line with the crazy high costs of a barrel of oil right now.
Inflation is still low. Oil prices are what's driving everything up, and I agree we're all feeling it.
 

zman1

Active Member

Originally Posted by 1journeyman
http:///forum/post/2495268
Zman, I think your observations are more in line with the crazy high costs of a barrel of oil right now.
Inflation is still low. Oil prices are what's driving everything up, and I agree we're all feeling it.
AP 2/28/08
"Bernanke, however, is hopeful that previous rate reductions and the $168 billion economic aid plan of tax rebates for people and tax breaks for business will energize the economy in the second half of 2008.
A gauge of inflation linked to the GDP report showed that "core" prices — excluding food and energy
— grew at a rate of 2.7 percent in the fourth quarter. The inflation reading — although unchanged from the government's initial estimate — showed that inflation had picked up sharply from the third quarter's 2 percent pace.
The inflation figure is above the Fed's comfort zone — the upper bound of which is a 2 percent inflation rate.
With inflation rising as the economy slows, fears are increasing that the country may be headed for a bout of stagflation. That's a scenario the country hasn't experienced since the 1970s."
I really don't need this AP comfirmation so I can feel it, I felt it before Bernanke
had to say it..
 

stdreb27

Active Member

Originally Posted by zman1
http:///forum/post/2495302
AP 2/28/08
"Bernanke, however, is hopeful that previous rate reductions and the $168 billion economic aid plan of tax rebates for people and tax breaks for business will energize the economy in the second half of 2008.
A gauge of inflation linked to the GDP report showed that "core" prices — excluding food and energy
— grew at a rate of 2.7 percent in the fourth quarter. The inflation reading — although unchanged from the government's initial estimate — showed that inflation had picked up sharply from the third quarter's 2 percent pace.
The inflation figure is above the Fed's comfort zone — the upper bound of which is a 2 percent inflation rate.
With inflation rising as the economy slows, fears are increasing that the country may be headed for a bout of stagflation. That's a scenario the country hasn't experienced since the 1970s."
I really don't need this AP comfirmation so I can feel it, I felt it before Bernanke
had to say it it..
You are talking about two different types of number. The one you defined is the Consumer Price Index or the CPI that increased at a rate of .03% The overall rate for the US was within target rates for 2007. The number I think that article is quoting is the Producer Price Index which is more volatile.
CPI
PPI
Another thing to remember is that usually inflation is reported as an annualized rate. So if they take inflation for one month, then multiply it by 12 you get the generally quoted rate.
I was talking to a former professor regarding a related topic of the current expansionary policy of the Fed. Asking why Bernaki isn't addressing the inflation vs the slowdown in growth of the GDP. This is what he said today.
"I think they are worried more about growth. There's lots of talk about high inflation, but I don't see the problem. Most price indexes are up between 2 and 3 percent in 2007, which is far from high inflation and within the Fed's target. The producer price index is always volatile.
Now, I don't think the economy is that weak. I don't see a recession.
Therefore, I don't see unemployment rising much higher. I think people are just drumming-up fear and uncertainty for different reasons."
 

stdreb27

Active Member
Originally Posted by zman1
http:///forum/post/2495263
Political suicide would be to promote spending cuts and raise taxes to start buying down debt long tern and get on the correct side of the line. Since everyone is impacted by inflation regardless of economic station in life. harder on some than others. Maybe it's just the Midwest, everything related to FCS (food, clothing, shelter) has gotten much tougher. Small business is getting hit too, even with passing the cost on, less business is a bottomline impactor. I don't have the answers either but enjoyed your perspective, thanks.
The problem with raising taxes is the flawed assumption that we need to pay more, not the government needs to waste less.
Second higher percentage of taxes does not mean higher tax revenue. Infact the opposite has played out in actual practice. During the Bush administration the IRS has had record dollar amounts of income. The same was true during JFK's tax cuts, and Regan's.
Simply put we have government invention to blame for alot of these rising costs. The hoax of global warming and the resulting regulations, corn is a major food for every farm animal we harvest, with the price of corn rising due to the increased demand for ethanol. We literally feed corn to everything. So we are seeing a residual costs passed onto the consumer. Likewise the additional costs involved in creating ethanol to put in our cars that gas companies did not have to pay. (now that being said the actual costs have not been computed, at least I haven't seen anything but I doubt I will because the information would Inconvient for the Global warming croud.) And now we have 2 democrat candidates that are looking to implement a "universal healthcare plan" that quite simply has the potential to cost as much if not more than any other major entitlement program like social security. And we can't even keep social security solvent. It just doesn't make sense. From an economic standpoint I'm totally baffled.
 

stdreb27

Active Member
Originally Posted by Rylan1
http:///forum/post/2493263
Well if you want to debate the policies than lets compare them... what I'm sick of is the slanderous personal attacks. .
1st issue.. he said he will discontinue corporate tax breaks for companies who take jobs overseas.. and give tax breaks to those that invest in America.
So I've discussed your topic, and gave you an educated argument why this statement is asinine, and a whole day later, the democrat is no where to be found.
Did I blow you out of the water?
 
Top