Just curious - know this is a bit off topic - IF they built the new arena in it's original location, would they be able to afford to build it without this high price tag, and begging companies to buy naming rights to get it built? I also read in the Free Press that they're thinking about taxing hotels to pay for the new arena? If true, seems unfair. But then that's what they did to cigs
posted by starling02 at 04:00 P.M. EST on Tue Aug 29, 2006 #
Nothing new. Nearly every city that has built a new arena uses money raised by selling naming rights to help pay for it. Same goes for the hotel tax.
People in Toledo seem to live under a rock and not realize this goes on every where and its usually successful. However, when you have a city that is filled with negativity, zero common sense, and a bunch of recycled politicians - what do you expect.
posted by JustaSooner at 05:29 P.M. EST on Tue Aug 29, 2006 #
Okay,last week Chema tells Fred on WSPD that it would be counter-productive to mention possible naming rights sponsors as it might scare them off. Today Rumpf says O-C is a "potential" which means nothing, since every large company is a "potential". Is this a ploy to force O-C into making a decision, or to push others into jumping into the bidding war? And if you can mention O-C why wouldn't you mention all the "potential" sponsors? And as Justa says they do this everywhere which of course as we all know makes it right. I hope your kids never use that argument on you Justa. You should read Field of Schemes.
posted by buttonpusher at 06:32 P.M. EST on Tue Aug 29, 2006 #
Nearly every city that has built a new arena uses money raised by selling naming rights to help pay for it. Same goes for the hotel tax.
I'll go along with the naming rights, but not for the hotel tax.
You can talk all day long about how other cities are doing it, but do other cities pay all the taxes we're already paying?
When we're spending so much effort to encourage people to visit and spend money in toledo it is wize to increase their cost to do so?
posted by billy at 06:44 P.M. EST on Tue Aug 29, 2006 #
Sounds like Owens Corning plans to be around for a while. That's a good sign.
I'm concerned about spending for growth downtown and then making it more expensive for tourists to come here.
posted by katie82640 at 07:17 P.M. EST on Tue Aug 29, 2006 #
I'd contribute $20 for it to NOT be named after a corporation.
Where's Mags? Maybe she'd like to front that as an option... raising money from people who would pay to NOT name it after some damn corporation.
Let's just look at something:
Pine Knob => DTE Energy Music Theatre
Gund Arena => Quicken Loans Arena
Polaris Ampitheatre => Germaine Ampitheatre (after a CAR DEALER)
Jacobs Field => ??? (naming rights expire at the end of this year due to sale of the Indians, don't expect it to be the Jake any more)
And my personal favorite, Heinz Field... hopefully the Steelers won't cut the mustard and be unable to ketchup to the Browns. May Roethlisberger find himself in quite a pickle this year....
And if you want a more extreme example of naming rights gone wrong, try the big building where the Celtics and Bruins play in Boston, which was the Shawmut Center during construction, the FleetCenter when construction finished (Shawmut and Fleet were in a bidding war for the rights while at the same time Fleet was taking over Shawmut). They had to replace every seat in the damned place because they had the Shawmut logo on them, and change the color scheme. Then FleetBoston and Bank of America merged and paid off to get out of the naming rights agreement, so the owner of the building sold the rights to Toronto-Dominion Bank, so it's now the TD-Banknorth Garden. (Yeah, I plagarized Wikipedia.)
Thanks, but I think it'd be nice to attend events in a venue that doesn't have a goddamn identity crisis. We don't need any The-Venue-Formerly-Known-As stuff. Shit, I should go get a lottery ticket; if I win, I'll buy the rights myself and come up with some unpronounceable symbol to name the building with. Or I'll just name it the Fark.com UFIA Arena.
posted by anonymouscoward at 07:47 P.M. EST on Tue Aug 29, 2006 #
Starling - several 'surveys' of the existing arena site show that there may be ground issues which would increase the cost to build a new arena on the existing location of the Sports Arena. It seems that there may be some areas of 'fill' on this property. Another concern which was identified as a cost factor is the parking. A new sports arena at the current location would need a parking garage (according to the experts) and that would add significant expense.
AC - very interesting idea...we'd need about $50 from every resident in Toledo (children included, considering the recent estimation of declining population) or $35 from every resident in the County. Yep - I'd cover the cost of my family just to not have to worry about the naming rights...
Bet there'd be a lot more takers on such an offer than some would think. However, it still wouldn't get us to where we needed to be in terms of the total amount of financing....but it would help!
Justasooner - Nationwide Arena in Columbus was built without such taxes...Interestingly, the voters turned down the tax support and they ended up building it anyway - but with PRIVATE funds. Wonder why Toledo/Lucas County is so quick to spend tax dollars when it's proven that private companies won't risk their own money when politicians are falling all over themselves to spend YOUR money instead? Hmmm???
posted by MaggieThurber at 08:05 P.M. EST on Tue Aug 29, 2006 #
Well . . . this may be a silly comment, but couldn't we have guessed who the biz committee was considering?
OC is an obvious choice.
Dana could be another.
DaimlerChrysler/Jeep is another possibility.
What about OI?
Pilkington could be another, though it's roots in Toledo are getting more and more frail (anyone remeber LOF? It does still produce glass in Rossford.). Still, it could help in the energy efficiency aspect. (Note: Pilkington is a client of my employer.)
Maybe even Block Communications? It has a bit of influence and a strong presence in the community.
Though Marathon is no longer based in Findlay, it has somewhat of a local connection (or, maybe not?).
I'm sure if we searched for the major corporate players in town, we could be pretty close to the four or five being considered.
Just because Mr. Rumpf confirmed one is news, but who it is isn't that big of news.
The main question, as buttonpusher noted, why name only OC? Maybe because a tentative deal has been worked out? If not, I'd be ticked if I was OC.
Mike
posted by miked918 at 08:07 P.M. EST on Tue Aug 29, 2006 #
It could be called HCR Arena after HCR Manorcare. I understand from a friend that this company is a major player in Toledo with offices and facilities across the country. I suspect they are a Fortune 1000 company with alot of money to be used for marketing.
posted by toledodemocrat at 09:40 P.M. EST on Tue Aug 29, 2006 #
How about Clear Channel Arena? That should please Buttonpusher.
posted by toledodemocrat at 09:53 P.M. EST on Tue Aug 29, 2006 #
For a company to have invest in naming rights they have to get something out of it. I just don't see that with Owens Corning. The business OC is in isn't really a direct-to-consumer business like 5/3 Bank or Nationwide or Dell. Neither is Dana or OI. Name recognition (which is the point behind naming rights) doesn't matter to them very much. They could advertise all they want and they aren't going to increase sales. I'm not saying they won't do it, but if OC does buy the naming rights I think it would be purely from the standpoint of community pride and helping Toledo.
Maybe DaimlerChrysler, Jeep, or Wrangler Arena might work. They are definitely in the name recognition business.
On the issue of building it where it is.....I don't think it's a good idea at all for a couple of reasons. First off it will be separated from the heart of downtown by the Maumee and I think we'd lose any synergy that is possible if it were built downtown. Secondly, the parking situation on the east side is a major expense. If it is built downtown the parking is already there in abundance. The City Paper said there are something like 19,000 parking spots within a ten minute walk.
posted by HeyHey at 09:56 P.M. EST on Tue Aug 29, 2006 #
Ms. Thurber stated...
Justasooner - Nationwide Arena in Columbus was built without such taxes...Interestingly, the voters turned down the tax support and they ended up building it anyway - but with PRIVATE funds. Wonder why Toledo/Lucas County is so quick to spend tax dollars when it's proven that private companies won't risk their own money when politicians are falling all over themselves to spend YOUR money instead? Hmmm???
Well its quite obvious the leadership of Toledo/Lucas County the last 20 years has been nothing for a joke. There is such a mind set in place that the only way things will get done is if the local governments invest money, yes tax dollars, into the city to begin revitalization. People have been beat down so much that they are completely happy with a community that is shrinking and struggling. Yet at the same time they keep electing the same group of career politicians because they are so affraid of change it is disgusting.
If you don't like the way the city is doing it, perhaps look at other ways to finance projects. Personally I would look at the MAPS project done in Oklahoma City in the late 90s. A six year 1 cent sales tax that was spent on nothing but improvement projects. What did they get out of the deal? A new 20,000 seat arena (that is hosting the Hornets and expected to get its own NBA franchise, not to mention numerous NCAA tournaments), a new ballpark (where the AAA Championship game will be held), the Bricktown Canal and entertainment district, a new art museum, new civic center, new downtown library, etc.
Something similar could be attempted in Toledo. The key...the money has to be spent on the revitalization projects. I can only imagine how many Toledo politicians or other local leaders would try to rob such a fund to pay for other services. If Toledo wants to get out of being the arm pit of the rust belt and finally make something of itself, new leaders and new ideas need to step up. The new ballpark is a start. The arena...could very well be...but why only 10,000 seats? What a waste. The city has so much potential with the riverfront and lake being a great attraction to integrate in the city. Unfortunately, no has had the courage to stand up to try to dump the corrupt and worthless political heads currently running the community.
posted by JustaSooner at 10:17 P.M. EST on Tue Aug 29, 2006 #
Good point about Nationwide Arena Maggie - but there was some City money spent, though the majority of it was privately financed, if this info is accurate.
June 3, 1997
Calling it a second chance too good to refuse, Columbus City Council approved a plan yesterday for a privately funded Downtown arena that gives the developers control of the neighboring Ohio Penitentiary site.
Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co. will put up 90 percent of the arena's $125 million cost, with the rest coming from The Dispatch Printing Co.
The city will cover the cost of road improvements and other infrastructure around the proposed arena site at Nationwide Boulevard and Front Street and grant the developers a 10-year lease of the old Pen site, with an option to buy the land at fair market value.
The city estimates that providing the improvements will cost $20 million, including extending Nationwide Boulevard through the Pen site to Neil Avenue. But Mayor Greg Lashutka said most of the work would be required even without an arena
http://hockey.ballparks.com/NHL/ColumbusBlueJackets/articles.htm
posted by psyche777 at 10:25 P.M. EST on Tue Aug 29, 2006 #
psyche - you're correct about the infrastructure improvements for Nationwide Arena...but a community would do such improvements for most developments - not just an arena, as your referenced article says.
Locally, we've done such improvements for the new Jeep plant, the Jeep supplier park, the Dana Tech Center, OC in downtown, and even for the Marina District.
Additionally, Columbus issued a lease with an option to buy - meaning the city received some sort of income as well.
Our arena's proposed financing plan is 83% public monies.
posted by MaggieThurber at 02:35 A.M. EST on Wed Aug 30, 2006 #
Our arena's proposed financing plan is 83% public monies.
All of a sudden Im sitting 2 inches taller in my chair! (cuz my butt cheeks are all bunched up...)
posted by billy at 06:40 A.M. EST on Wed Aug 30, 2006 #
JustASooner, you have to go back to college or something to understand what the public treasury is really there for. Your obviously well-practiced cynicism about Toledo pols is an asset in your ability to argue, but you're never going to be able to explain that the role of government is to fund private venues. Toledo supports economic development by maintaining roads, providing utilities, and enforcing the law. Period. If we get the laziness and corruption out of this government, then you'd see a significant fall in administrative overhead to take care of that minimalist list, leading to the area being attractive to businesses again.
Corporare welfare never works, JustASooner. In the long term it just creates a new class of never-satisfied dependents called "corporations". And even if it did "work", short term and long term, then you're still stealing public funds for the direct benefit of a private entity. That's theft and there's no other rational term for it. Do the moral thing and stop supporting this theft. Downsize the government back to its constitutional duties only and you'd see what the real marvel of the free market can do!
At any rate, no one is stopping an investor or two from spending their own money on this arena and from soliciting money in the form of naming rights from other private entities.
posted by GuestZero at 01:27 P.M. EST on Wed Aug 30, 2006 #
Nationwide Arena in Columbus was built without such taxes...Interestingly, the voters turned down the tax support and they ended up building it anyway - but with PRIVATE funds. Wonder why Toledo/Lucas County is so quick to spend tax dollars when it's proven that private companies won't risk their own money when politicians are falling all over themselves to spend YOUR money instead? Hmmm???
Investors don't just throw money at a project that offers a return, they balance the risk vs. return. Just because no one's jumping at the opportunity to fund this project doesn't mean it's unprofitable.
Corporare welfare never works, JustASooner. In the long term it just creates a new class of never-satisfied dependents called "corporations".
Yet I've seen you post comments about how we need to raise tariff barriers to protect our manufacturing sector. Corporate welfare takes many forms, and I would argue that tariffs are much harder on John Q. and Jane Q. Public than building an arena on the government's dime.
posted by thenick at 03:47 P.M. EST on Wed Aug 30, 2006 #
Hey Maggie...Noe wants his fifty bucks back.
posted by tiger at 03:55 P.M. EST on Wed Aug 30, 2006 #
I heard on wspd today (Brian Wilson) that "they" (don't know who 'they' is) added it all up and the Erie Street Market (9 years and 9 managers) has cost Toledo over 3 Million dollars. Wonder why they didn't use it to build the arena.
posted by starling02 at 07:22 P.M. EST on Wed Aug 30, 2006 #
If the Blocks had $14 million to spare, they could give it to their employees.
posted by toledojim at 07:35 P.M. EST on Wed Aug 30, 2006 #
Brian Wilson is a town-cryer and a fool. Let's try to keep the arena and Erie Street Market a two seperate issues since they are both two different entities.
posted by HolyHolyToledo at 07:40 P.M. EST on Wed Aug 30, 2006 #
Tiger, did Maggie respond to you? I figured she should give the entire dollar figure that is the taxpayers' money and put it to good use like the arena for an example. Someone needs to take a hammer and break Miss Thurber's piggy bank.
posted by HolyHolyToledo at 07:42 P.M. EST on Wed Aug 30, 2006 #
Tigger and HHT: please try to stay on topic. HHT: Your comment about the arena and ESM is contradicted when YOU go off into a separate issue and mix up politics.
Though it's a bit backwards, it is a good step that Gerken et al are looking to get some commitments as tenants for the proposed arena before going too far. It would've been nice to do that first -- it'd be easier to win over taxpayers. IF they can get teams to sign and commit to play in the arena, that'll be a great start.
Mike
posted by miked918 at 08:08 P.M. EST on Wed Aug 30, 2006 #
miked918, I was referring my comments to Brian Wilson's statement in starling02's post. Nothing more nothing less, ok Dad? Perhaps if I learn to copy and paste I wouldn't have someone bark up my tree.
And yes I will try my best to stay on topic. How about this since we have enough of these in the Toledo area, let's call the arena "Dollar General Arena" or "Cash Advance Arena".
posted by HolyHolyToledo at 08:34 P.M. EST on Wed Aug 30, 2006 #
What is this red box around some comments? I've never seen it before....have I missed something?
posted by HeyHey at 06:36 P.M. EST on Thu Aug 31, 2006 #
What is this red box around some comments? I've never seen it before....have I missed something?
That's the special "PLEASE READ THIS COMMENT, IT IS TEH AWESOME!!!!" highlight.
posted by anonymouscoward at 07:06 P.M. EST on Thu Aug 31, 2006 #
HeyHey...from the posting guidelines:
Ouch!!! command
On July 14, 2006, a method was added that allows logged-in users to complain that a comment is inflammatory. The Ouch!!! link appears immediately to the left of the "posted by" line at the bottom of a comment. The ouch link only appears if the user is logged in, and it only appears if the topic is young enough to still accept comments.
A user can only complain once per comment. Trying to issue a second complaint causes the user to receive an error message, telling the user he or she complained already for that comment. After the first complaint, all that happens visually for the user is the page reloads with the comment being complained about appearing at the top of the webpage, as if the user clicked on the permalink.
And a complaint is registered in the database. When a comment receives 'X' number of complaints, the background color for that comment changes to a light red, indicating to everyone that it's a comment not worth reading.
The point of the "Ouch!!!" command is to allow users to police the site and hopefully reduce the noise, especially those comments that probably break the posting guidelines of the site. This is not meant to be used because one user simply disagrees with another user's viewpoint. "Ouch!!!" is meant to highlight obviously offensive or troll-like comments.
posted by MaggieThurber at 08:50 P.M. EST on Thu Aug 31, 2006 #
The ouch command is hilarious. I see that Maggie has an ouch as well as myself.
posted by HolyHolyToledo at 09:50 P.M. EST on Thu Aug 31, 2006 #
I said: ' ' Corporare welfare never works, JustASooner. In the long term it just creates a new class of never-satisfied dependents called "corporations". ' '
thenick kindly responded: "Yet I've seen you post comments about how we need to raise tariff barriers to protect our manufacturing sector. Corporate welfare takes many forms, and I would argue that tariffs are much harder on John Q. and Jane Q. Public than building an arena on the government's dime."
You saw me post such comments since it's a proper function of a sovereign government to tariff. Under Populistic control of such a government, We The People have every right to protect national assets (like our automotive workforce -- still the most productive on Earth) from outrageous underpricing from abroad.
This was the design of the US Constitutional government. In high contrast, there is NO government function in enacting outright corporate welfare ... whereby businesses are excluded from taxation or given various subsidies. Furthermore, tariffing is a tax upon wealth as an aggregate, by hitting the producer, not the consumer. Sure, the producer may try to pass those costs along, but he may eat them too, or simply go out of business, or leave that business product or sector for other domestic entities to pickup. Since business do not have the right to have the US, state and municipal governments support of guarantee their profits whatsoever, watching them go out of business (as an option) is perfectly fine with me, as it should be with you too.
As with any omelet, eggs must be broken. The hardest hit in such a system is the set of various small businessfolks. But corporate welfare hits them with equal force (if not more) since corporate welfare heavily favors large businesses on average. Mom-n-Pop stores lost the battle with the Wal*Martians a long time ago, but granting tax abatements to Wal*Mart et al just made it even MORE impossible for Mom-n-Pop to compete.
posted by GuestZero at 10:37 P.M. EST on Thu Aug 31, 2006 #
Here are the comments that have gone supernova from too many ouchies:
A - by anonymouscoward
B - by pink_slip
C - by anonymouscoward
D - by pink_slip
E - by anonymouscoward
F - by anonymouscoward
G - by McCaskey
H - by anonymouscoward
I - by anonymouscoward
J - by tiger
K - by HolyHolyToledo
Here's something else for your amusement: list of Toledo Talk F-Bombers.
posted by jr at 10:47 P.M. EST on Thu Aug 31, 2006 #
Under Populistic control of such a government, We The People have every right to protect national assets (like our automotive workforce -- still the most productive on Earth) from outrageous underpricing from abroad.
We do have that right, but we also have the right not to place tariffs on incoming goods. Are you saying that the American consumer should pay significantly more for an inferior product? At what price do we "protect" our own producers?
by hitting the producer, not the consumer.
That's blatantly incorrect. You better believe it hits the American consumer. The minute you add tariffs to foreign cars is the minute you'll see American car prices rise to make a larger profit. Same quality, higher price. How can you say it doesn't affect the American consumer? In your ideal world we'd be paying more for everything from food and clothes to cars and computers. With those increased prices comes a drop in standard of living.
posted by HeyHey at 10:58 P.M. EST on Thu Aug 31, 2006 #
Note the bias in use of the Ouch!!! towards the comments of "liberals". Hmmmmmmm.
Too bad that when a comment goes Ouch!!!, there's not a line that says "marked Ouch!!! by User1, User2, User3..."
I still strongly suspect previous abuse of Ouch!!! by sock puppets.
posted by anonymouscoward at 11:20 P.M. EST on Thu Aug 31, 2006 #
Too bad that when a comment goes Ouch!!!, there's not a line that says "marked Ouch!!! by User1, User2, User3..."
That does sound like a valid idea from AnonC. I've Ouch'd! a comment in the past and would've fessed up.
Mike
posted by miked918 at 07:25 A.M. EST on Fri Sep 01, 2006 #
So that what? The responsibility could be moved over from those that posted to those that ouch'd?
I've ouch'd. And if I see some of it again - I'll hit the botton again.
posted by katie82640 at 08:07 A.M. EST on Fri Sep 01, 2006 #
Under Populistic control of such a government, We The People have every right to protect national assets (like our automotive workforce -- still the most productive on Earth) from outrageous underpricing from abroad.
But back here in reality, a tariff ends up punishing those same auto workers by causing goods and services to skyrocket in price. Besides, there's nothing illegal with foreign companies manufacturing and exporting goods at a low cost, as long as they aren't dumping the products to gain marketshare. I'll let you in on a secret: The US did the same thing during our industrial revolution.
Furthermore, tariffing is a tax upon wealth as an aggregate, by hitting the producer, not the consumer. Sure, the producer may try to pass those costs along, but he may eat them too, or simply go out of business, or leave that business product or sector for other domestic entities to pickup.
The producer may pass the costs along? No, the producers will pass the costs along and some will go out of business because the spending power of the average American has been cut drastically due to inflated prices of goods and services. This leads to more job losses, further decreasing consumer spending and creating a vicious cycle of economic contraction.
The hardest hit in such a system is the set of various small businessfolks. But corporate welfare hits them with equal force (if not more) since corporate welfare heavily favors large businesses on average.
You really have no idea how damaging tariffs are, do you? The Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act either prolonged or caused the Great Depression depending on who you talk to. With tax incentives to large businesses, small businesses can carve out a niche in the market and thrive. With tariffs, small businesses go under because no one can afford niche products and they can't compete with the larger companies because of the economics of scale. And as HeyHey said above, consumers are the hardest hit by tariffs.
Since business do not have the right to have the US, state and municipal governments support of guarantee their profits whatsoever, watching them go out of business (as an option) is perfectly fine with me, as it should be with you too.
But you're arguing that we should protect industries that are inefficient and unprofitable without government intervention. Look, the Dependancy Theory is dead. It has been dead for over two decades now. Can you name even one instance where trade barriers provided lasting economic benefits to a country?
If you want to live in an autarky, go live in Bhutan. But hurry, even the Bhutanese are beginning to trade internationally.
posted by thenick at 08:24 A.M. EST on Fri Sep 01, 2006 #
Thenick, apparently you've never heard of companies going out of business or have had their profit margins shrink. If costs are simply "passed along" then how do these things happen?
The answer is that "will" is actually "may" ... and you damned well know it, too. The truth is that tariffs MAY be passed along since not all costs are passed onto customers in all instances. In short, you're wrong.
thenick said: "[Tariffing] leads to more job losses, further decreasing consumer spending and creating a vicious cycle of economic contraction."
... and WOW! Just like we've gone through (and are continuing to go through) with all this globalism! What was the difference, again?
The truth is that tariffing is still a natural form of government intervention in economics. We've had centuries to show that it has good and bad sides to it ... but these sides do not invalidate the action of tariffing. Invoking tariffs has a socio-economic price and it should be carefully considered before action is (perhaps) taken.
thenick said: "You really have no idea how damaging tariffs are, do you?"
In your own words, no more or less damaging than the effects of globalism's frictionless capital.
thenick said: "With tax incentives to large businesses, small businesses can carve out a niche in the market and thrive."
That's always possible. But, in today's environment where large corporations are unprecedentally merging with government, tax incentives are only giving those same large businesses permanent market positions (as edges) which allow them to squash the smaller producers disproportionately like bugs. The government should not operate as a Corporate Service Agency. Businesses have no "right" to profits (inasmuch as government acts to protect those profits). The government through Populism should act instead to tariff when ruination of industry comes from abroad. It is in the domestic people's best interest that a Chinese manufacturer not be able to dump $5000 cars upon the American market with its $10000 cars. Those cheap cars should instead be tariffed intelligently, so that if they pollute, the tariff will force them to be outfitted with pollution controls; if they take away American jobs, then the tariff will provide retraining funds for the interim. Etc.
People are very fond of saying "in the short term" when they routinely dismiss the deep-seated problems of all this ruinous globalism. The trouble with this sentiment is not its truth, but rather in its viciousness. We don't have to leave the working class in the lurch "in the short term". We could instead adopt Eurpoean-style practices that shows a modicum of concern for classes of people whose minimum livelihoods (basic home, transportation, heat and food) are threatened by globalism. European nations tend to have socialist-styled programs which aim at, say, re-training workers who find themselves laid-off. Re-training programs are a lot better than the brainless unemployment-payment system used so prevalently here in the US. Workers always need money, sure, but that's basic and short-term; the more complex and long-term need guidance and opportunity.
thenick said: "But you're arguing that we should protect industries that are inefficient and unprofitable without government intervention."
No, you insist upon assuming that. Inefficiency is another topic entirely. Those businesses who are too inefficient must go out of business ... eventually. But there's a large margin between what's efficient in the US as compared to what's efficient in Mexico. Workers in America have well earned the 40-hr workweek. Haven't they? Or are you one of the professional classes who has no sympathy for the plight of the working man, hence you don't care how many hours he has to work?
At any rate, you should be careful bringing up the spectre of efficiency. American workers are probably the most productive in the world. Productivity is another way of saying "efficient". Yet globalism is still demanding that these workers be put out of their jobs. So, it's not about efficiency. There's another concern here, and it probably has a lot to do with the highly inefficient process of minting more globalist millionaires and billionaires. Concentration of wealth can't be the only goal of civilization.
thenick said: "Can you name even one instance where trade barriers provided lasting economic benefits to a country?"
Easy: America. The economic benefits in America from our many decades of modest trade barriers are something that we would still be enjoying if it were not for the collapse of Populism. This collapse allowed severe capital flight and made a mockery of trade.
It's been said that corporations hate the American worker but love the American consumer. This kind of thing is strongly made possible by not only popular stupidity but also by an equally popular excess of financial crediting. Banks are loaning money like there's literally no tomorrow. The TRUE capacity of the American consumer would become far more apparent if crediting agencies stopped giving him so much credit that he is obviously unable to make good on. That immense margin between worker and consumer is still artificially sustained and must collapse. One of my many financial complaints is that we should be smart enough to avoid such a collapse in the first place.
The right and value of tariffing is not something done in a vacuum. Tariffing makes sense when there's a prosperous domestic population that can benefit from it. I think that your logic is just confused on tariffing since you are starting from the viewpoint that globalism is the natural state of mankind. It is not. The natural state of mankind is TRIBALISM. The modern stretching of tribalism is in the formation of states, even nations (which are still very far removed from tribes, so they are significantly invalid groupings). When this stretching attempts to encompass homo globalis, it snaps. Homo globalis is a creature incompatible with tariffing, and in fact ANY aspect of nationalism. But the modern Western media has been pumping the ideal of homo globalis for so long that to people like you, it probably seems a normal and sane starting point for judging finance.
thenick said: "If you want to live in an autarky, go live in Bhutan."
No thanks. I'll just stay here in my own country and demand rational financial controls, which includes tariffing, as well as a progressive tax system. But there's still hope for you, my friend. Future endeavors may result in the formation of floating, sovereign nations in the middle of our oceans -- based upon OTECs for power, ocean minerals for building material, and oceanic biology for foods and such. There, you can practice your regulation-free lifestyle. Instead of me moving to Bhutan since you're obviously uncomfortable with my advocacy of American civilization, I cordially invite you to move to one of those city-states yourself. It's a better match overall, and you certainly deserve to suffer what such a vicious society is capable of delivering upon its "natives".
posted by GuestZero at 08:54 P.M. EST on Sun Sep 03, 2006 #
Here's something else for your amusement: list of Toledo Talk F-Bombers
Fuck, i just want to get added to the list. Then at least I can say I belong somewhere.
posted by toledodemocrat at 11:19 P.M. EST on Thu Sep 07, 2006 #
I noticed that I'm #4 on the F-bomb list. Fücking unreal!
posted by GuestZero at 03:01 A.M. EST on Fri Sep 08, 2006 #
Thenick, apparently you've never heard of companies going out of business or have had their profit margins shrink. If costs are simply "passed along" then how do these things happen?
This is a basic economic truth. Increases in production costs, promotion costs, and even taxes are passed on to the consumer. If they can't find consumers willing to pay these higher prices, they go out of business.
"[Tariffing] leads to more job losses, further decreasing consumer spending and creating a vicious cycle of economic contraction."
... and WOW! Just like we've gone through (and are continuing to go through) with all this globalism! What was the difference, again?
The difference is that there are no jobs being created and the economy is contracting when tariffs are implemented. Just look at the steel tariff imposed a few years back. The steel industry failed to reorganize itself and other manufacturing segments suffered because of increases in raw material costs.
But, in today's environment where large corporations are unprecedentally merging with government
Yeah, government partnering with large corporations is unprecedented. I'm not saying tax breaks to large companies are fair, I'm saying tax breaks are much less devastating to the American economy than tariffs are.
Businesses have no "right" to profits (inasmuch as government acts to protect those profits).
If you believe this, why do you insist that the government should levy tariffs to protect businesses that would otherwise be unprofitable?
Those cheap cars should instead be tariffed intelligently, so that if they pollute, the tariff will force them to be outfitted with pollution controls
The government already regulates emissions and, along with stringent safety standards, can prevent the sales of foreign automobiles. IIRC, a Chinese auto manufacturer already tried to get their cheap SUV into the US market, but was unable to do so because their SUV had flagged the safety tests.
We could instead adopt Eurpoean-style practices that shows a modicum of concern for classes of people whose minimum livelihoods (basic home, transportation, heat and food) are threatened by globalism.
And oh how grateful those people are. Just kidding.
Again, we already offer these things. My dad was layed off due to his company moving manufacturing south of the border, and he received a grant to use for training. So did every other employee of the plant.
No, you insist upon assuming that. Inefficiency is another topic entirely. Those businesses who are too inefficient must go out of business ... eventually.
Again, inefficiencies are passed on to consumers in the price of the finished product. The difference between an economy protected by tariffs and trade barriers and one that offers free trade is that the consumers in a protected economy don't have the option of paying for lower-cost foreign goods, thus driving up the average American's cost of living. Under a free market system, American manufacturers must constantly increase efficiency to allow the price of their goods to match those of foreign competitors or they go out of business.
Workers in America have well earned the 40-hr workweek. Haven't they? Or are you one of the professional classes who has no sympathy for the plight of the working man, hence you don't care how many hours he has to work?
Yes, I hate the American working man. Hang on a second while I adjust my monocle so I can properly see the blue collar employee I am beating right now.
"Can you name even one instance where trade barriers provided lasting economic benefits to a country?"
Easy: America. The economic benefits in America from our many decades of modest trade barriers are something that we would still be enjoying if it were not for the collapse of Populism. This collapse allowed severe capital flight and made a mockery of trade.
As Lee Corso says, "Not so fast my friend." Tariffs have causes numerous recessions and are believed to have either caused or extended the Great Depression. How specifically have tariffs helped the American populus?
The right and value of tariffing is not something done in a vacuum.
That's what I'm trying to get you to understand. If we levy tariffs, other countries will put up tariffs against us. Very quickly our exports would drop and massive layoffs would ensue. Do you expect countries like Germany, Brazil, and China to just accept that tariffs are the price of doing business in America and never implement their own tariffs against our goods? Those countries' governments would be forced to protect their industries and would quickly raise trade barriers. I'm not thinking hypothetically, this exact situation has happened before.
Tariffing makes sense when there's a prosperous domestic population that can benefit from it.
If a country has a prosperous domestic population, it doesn't need to tariff, because it's able to compete in the global market.
There, you can practice your regulation-free lifestyle.
Did I say I wanted a regulation-free economy?
Instead of me moving to Bhutan since you're obviously uncomfortable with my advocacy of American civilization, I cordially invite you to move to one of those city-states yourself.
Yeah, trade barriers are as American as baseball and apple pie. In fact, I'm pretty sure the patriots of the Revolution were in favor of government-imposed trade restrictions.
posted by thenick at 03:57 P.M. EST on Fri Sep 08, 2006 #
thenick: "This is a basic economic truth. Increases in production costs, promotion costs, and even taxes are passed on to the consumer."
You're avoiding my clear English text. Shrinking profit margins demonstrate that invoking a tariff doesn't necessarily harm the consumer since tariff overhead can be absorbed by the producer. THAT is the basic economic truth here. And yes, going out of business is one of the options. It's also true that a lack of some producers doesn't harm the consumer, either.
Producers do eat costs. Not all supplier price hikes are passed to the consumer. Welcome to the real world, thenick. I'm your red pill.
thenick: "The difference is that there are no jobs being created and the economy is contracting when tariffs are implemented."
This isn't different from the effects of outsourcing and offshoring. Please look up the dictionary term for "difference".
thenick: "Just look at the steel tariff imposed a few years back. The steel industry failed to reorganize itself and other manufacturing segments suffered because of increases in raw material costs."
Oh, yes, the steel tariff. The domestic steel companies PROMPTLY raised their prices once the tariff was laid upon foreign sources. I'm curious as to why you didn't mention that.
thenick: "I'm not saying tax breaks to large companies are fair, I'm saying tax breaks are much less devastating to the American economy than tariffs are."
Well, I AM saying that the tax breaks are unfair and must be stopped since they are just corporate welfare, hence welfare for the rich. The rich can afford to pay their own way in life. At any rate, pursuing one "devastating" method over another is specious since one shouldn't pursue devastating policies in the first place.
Me: "Businesses have no "right" to profits (inasmuch as government acts to protect those profits)."
thenick: "If you believe this, why do you insist that the government should levy tariffs to protect businesses that would otherwise be unprofitable?"
Now, how did I know you'd bite on that hook?
Because there is a social contract that says we don't let the wealthy own everything and destroy society thereby. This is called Populist government, as a management system for resolving (without the use of violence) the conflicts of social demands with private ownership (as well as social demands upon public property).
For example, it's becoming increasingly difficult to make a profit when opposed by the Wal*Mart model. Such an egregious example as Wal*Mart destroys rational retail operations like the stereotypical "mom and pop" store. These stereotypical "mom and pop" stores are the very heart of the American cultural model and must be supported when sensible to do so. Tariffing and taxes should be imposed to stop the Wal*Martians from destroying that sector of our society. It's not a simple-minded righwingnut problem of only deciding the merit of things on the basis of profit; as social participants (in other words: not as sociopaths) we must consider the social impact of letting a business crowd many others out of its sector. That is also the basis of anti-monopoly law. Either you agree that monopolies aren't only bad, but EVIL, or you don't.
But if you don't, then you have no business discussing American law and culture. Supporting monopolies is sociopathic behavior. Monopolistic practices are illegal, and are demonized since they ARE demons. Monopolies destroy society just to mint a few more millionaires. Society is much, much more than a few millionaires, and society cannot last by only acting as a corporate-profit service agency.
Like I said before, you can't just willy-nilly tariff when some domestic sector is threatened by cheaper foreign sources. There must be a rational and open dialog to discuss the issue, using tariffing as a possible solution, and as well, using "do nothing" as another possible solution. This is what government is for. But that's not what's happening when you take the tack that tariffing can't be done. Without government control of national boundaries, we have no sovereignty. Sovereignty is the point of even HAVING nations to begin with. Sovereignty is like the walls of your own home. We maintain walls since we have strong (and well justified) beliefs in privacy and self-determination. We are (or should be) sovereign in our own homes. This means that we can charge a tariff to anyone who wants to move products through our doors. This easily scales to the national level. Sovereignty is everything to the nation-state, and tariffing is the natural right within that philosophy.
thenick: "The government already regulates emissions and, along with stringent safety standards, can prevent the sales of foreign automobiles."
OK. That makes sense.
Me: "We could instead adopt Eurpoean-style practices that shows a modicum of concern for classes of people whose minimum livelihoods (basic home, transportation, heat and food) are threatened by globalism."
thenick: "Again, we already offer these things. My dad was layed off due to his company moving manufacturing south of the border, and he received a grant to use for training. So did every other employee of the plant."
If you're lucky enough to belong to a unionized manufacturing firm, you can get some or most of a European-style and -level of benefits for retaining. The vast majority of Americans only have a limited level of unemployment compensation that covers essentially no retraining programs at all. What happened was great for your dad, but you're just succumbing to the implied elitism in much domestic media today. Your dad's experience was unusual. The rest of us have to labor under long periods of unemployment and take great risks of financial ruin once an industry is done with us. THAT is nowhere near the European model of social concern for workers made redundant.
You've got to learn to look beyond your nose, thenick.
thenick: "Again, inefficiencies are passed on to consumers in the price of the finished product. The difference between an economy protected by tariffs and trade barriers and one that offers free trade is that the consumers in a protected economy don't have the option of paying for lower-cost foreign goods, thus driving up the average American's cost of living."
That's a great theory, but unlike a real theory there are no facts to support it. We've had significant dropping of trade barriers in America in the last 0.5 to 1.0 of a generation, yet the costs of living have literally skyrocketed during that time. By the evidence, we'd better invoke trade barriers fast before we can't afford to own homes, run our cars, and stay warm in the winter.
You might think that I'm being flip with my commentary here, but I'm not. Your theory might hold water if the necessary component to tariffing (or the lack of it) was invoked: that many other considerations should have been discussed and the results therefore planned for. America didn't plan for spending itself into the poor house by buying "cheap plastic Chinese shit" highly preferentially over domestically-produced lasting products (or even foreign-produced lasting products). Globalism was just embraced quickly and without thought for the terrible consequences.
One of the results that should have been planned for is that with the remarkable decline of prosperous jobs for the working class (yes, I'm largely talking about the folks who didn't get a college degree), the load upon the working class should have been reduced. Instead, we selected the entirely OPPOSITE approach. We instead gave enormous tax breaks and welfare to the corporations (i.e. the rich), leaving the working class to labor under not only a decrease in wages and security but also upon a reactionary increase in his living costs. The working class is hit harder and harder by taxation since the entire philosophy of taxation is now regressive instead of progressive; the tax system is now based upon the idea that the poor must pay more taxes than the rich ... "more" as a measure of tax impact upon their lives. Foolishly enough, the government itself (much governed itself by corporations, not the citizenry at large) thought it more important to return thousands of dollars a year to a millionaire, rather than to the working class slob.
At any rate, globalism would have worked for America if the common culture of America prepared for a Second World level of living for the working class. This would have meant downsizing the government itself -- and, hey, if the government isn't applying tariffs, then we can certainly do with less of it, right? Such a downsized government would have directly translated into fewer taxes (income, sales, property, fees) upon the working class. But as I said before, the exact opposite happened.
So all this anti-tariff sentiment is just bullshit. The sensible support of the retraction of economic goverance upon wealth should have been associated with retraction of economic goverance upon the poor and middle class.
thenick: "Under a free market system, American manufacturers must constantly increase efficiency to allow the price of their goods to match those of foreign competitors or they go out of business."
There is no "free market system" as long as corporate welfare exists. The reality is that the free market is being positioned for the poor and middle (i.e. working) classes, but the rich and corporate are receiving strong socialism benefits from the government. This isn't a blanket "free market". It's just crony capitalism. It would be best to call it "inverse tariffing", if anything.
Also, with payment structures differing so heavily, it's the veritable height of viciousness to ever say that American businesses must match prices with foreign sources that have effectively no environment regulations and no labor laws. Although it's true that foreign sources will eventually wise up and adopt a First World regulatory apparatus (or be burned out by their own people, I hope), "eventually" is a long time for the American worker with his monthly mortgage payment. Tariffing shouldn't be a permanent thing, which is part of the logic of tariffs. During the transition period, the domestic worker needs to have time to adjust his standard of living before he joins the Second World. Tariffs are supposed to buy that time for him.
As capitalistic prosperity crosses the globe, trade barriers NEED to be erected to allow populations time to adjust. Over time these artificial barriers should (I'd argue they MUST) fall, once each affected native population finds it's "own level" that is sustainable. This is an article of faith on my part and is one of the most uncertain of my philosophies.
thenick: "Yes, I hate the American working man. Hang on a second while I adjust my monocle so I can properly see the blue collar employee I am beating right now."
When you are content to let him fend for himself once his industry makes him redundant, then what can we call it other than hate? Also, when you buy on the basis of "lowest price" only, then you are only helping destroy him. You sound like you have more than enough knowledge to understand the effects of only thinking about yourself (economically speaking). This kind of viciousness can only be called hatred.
You can't have a society of freakin' individuals. A "society" implies involvement. When the average American worker is cut, you should feel the pain and bleed accordingly. If you don't, then you're a sociopath.
thenick: "Tariffs have causes numerous recessions and are believed to have either caused or extended the Great Depression."
How quickly you defend the greed and corruption that drives at least the modern business cycles of boom-then-bust! Tariffs don't explain that at all.
thenick: "How specifically have tariffs helped the American populus?"
Well, duh, by avoiding dumping of too-cheap products upon the American market. That's the basic theory of tariffing. If these products either don't reach the market, or reach it at a price that nearly matches domestic levels, then domestic production is either supported in the first instance and not adversely threatened in the second. It's only when globalism treats capital entirely different than products, do the gremlins then come out of the woodwork and ruin the action of tariffing.
Tariffing-by-denial is supposed to support domestic production in the first place since the denial forces domestic consumers to pursue domestic producers. In cases where the products must be obtained (note that steel is a great example), then domestic commerce just proceeds like it had done in the past, and hopefully the adjustment vector will be noticed and the future will involve integration of the foreign product into the domestic market once the adjustment is made and the tariff dropped.
Tariffing-by-equalizing is supposed to avoid the severe threat of unfair competition. The consumer will simply have more choices of producers. Since this is just "competition", it's a fair way to resolve the matter. Again, the tariff that accomplishes this should/must go away eventually as adjustment vectors are created and resolve themelves over time.
The end product of tariffing in America is that the American auto worker, for example, can ride his own industry into the end adjustment of Chinese cars showing up on American shores. Tariffs are a tool for helping this adjustment happen without domestic pain. Sure, consumers don't get the immediate benefit of cheap Chinese cars, but they're big boys and girls who apparently tolerated the prices of domestic cars in the past and can put off the day of full price adjustment. Societies adjust and sacrifice together. Togetherness is good, right?
Over time, prices will fall since a world's worth of producers will undoubtedly come up with better ideas for many things ... but there's no need to throw the domestic workforce to the dogs just to get a $5000 Chinese car (an SUV, no less!) to the American market in minimum time. More stuff in less time is just the pursuit of minting more millionaires. The world needs more middle class, NOT more millionaires.
Thenick, once you mature and see past your own greed, you'll understand the impact of my words. You can't design a sociopathic society, since it's a contradiction in terms. You have to show concern for your fellow man since, well, you're fellows and generally will stand or fall together in the largest sense. You can try to hole yourself up with a PhD, a corporate officership, a monstrous SUV, and a big home with an impressive security system in a gated community ... but all it ever takes is one .223 rifle bullet regardless of your protections. Not caring about the working class is only going to lead to the abrupt realization one day that they still know how to shoot.
thenick: "That's what I'm trying to get you to understand. If we levy tariffs, other countries will put up tariffs against us."
Oh, waah. I understood that perfectly well when I clearly stated that tariffing is the natural function of government -- hence ANY government. Other governments can tariff the fück out of our products. So what? I'm not concerned about that since America is very self-sufficient (except for this oil nonsense that is just a stupid addiction and by rights must be conquered domestically with conservation, public transit, and innovation with alternate domestic energy sources -- but I digress). We are a stong enough sector in our own right. Globalism offers to make more millionaires for America, true, but the majority shouldn't care about making sociopaths into millionaires. We don't need more rich. We need more independent middle class. I also don't care about all those dipshit middle class who have pretensions of making themselves rich. There's nothing wrong with being middle class and people should STOP the shame of being so.
Being concerned about foreign tariffing of our production is either pointless (since tariffing is the natural function of government = sovereignty), or elitist (as an expression of concern for the lack of millionaires produced from globalist commerce).
Sure, places like Japan and Britain -- notable for lacking diversity in natural resources -- should be very concerned about the tariffing of their products. But they're not America. America is blessed with a huge base of natural resources. So, what's to worry about if, say, Japan imposes a punitive tariff upon our steel production? Steel's still used in the USA in huge quantities. Fück the Nips in that case; with over 200 nations in the world, surely another foreign market can be found for that stream of steel.
thenick: "Very quickly our exports would drop and massive layoffs would ensue."
That's a neat trick since our own tariffs upon foreign products would support domestic production, leading to employment. Why do you so compartmentalize your reasoning about tariffs? You look at one thing and completely ignore the other. The dumping of Wal*Martian products on the American market IS THE ABERRATION that you avoid addressing. We should be tariffing the hell out of all that cheap Chinese plastic shit to support the level of First World prices, as we adjust our society to the cheapness or diversity of products from abroad.
The only people that dropped-exports really affect are the millionaires who were made rich from all this globalist arrangement. Since they're rich they can take care of themselves, so fück them. The vastly larger domestic workforce (who has been eating layoffs, wage decreases, and cost-of-living increases) is my only concern, and it should be yours, too, by that fellow-man thing I already mentioned.
To be even more explicit, America has acquired too many noveau riche who should have never been made wealthy from globalism. I consider it necessary to drive them out of the wealthy class therefore. They are only being sustained by a globalist financial system that hates the First World middle class and constantly works to destroy it. As a member of the First World middle class, I say: DESTROY THAT SYSTEM FIRST. I live a sustainable lifestyle, while they live the unsustainable one. I live the moral lifestyle, while they live the immoral one. I don't sympathize with the criminal mindset, and equally so I don't seek to support them. Both the criminal underclass and overclass has to understand that we middle class will either throw them in prison or kill them off, if necessary. Catch a clue and stop working towards that violent future.
thenick: "If a country has a prosperous domestic population, it doesn't need to tariff, because it's able to compete in the global market."
Competing with near-slave-labor societies isn't moral. Hence, you don't "need" to compete thusly in the global marketplace. Once protections are put into place in this global market to protect Human rights (home, heat, food, prosperity, legal equality, etc.), THEN we can talk about a need to compete.
thenick: "Did I say I wanted a regulation-free economy?"
Since tariffs are a natural function of a sovereign government, yes, you effectively did. There's nothing about being against tariffs that cannot be extrapolated to any government intervention in private commerce. The government intervenes to protect one or more parties in a transaction. Tariffs are merely blanket protections.
thenick: "Yeah, trade barriers are as American as baseball and apple pie."
US Constitution, Art.I, Sec.8: "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States; [...] To regulate commerce with foreign nations[.]"
Who wrote that document, again? Oh yeah, the founders. Egg, meet thenick's face.
posted by GuestZero at 04:55 A.M. EST on Sat Sep 09, 2006 #
You're avoiding my clear English text. Shrinking profit margins demonstrate that invoking a tariff doesn't necessarily harm the consumer since tariff overhead can be absorbed by the producer. THAT is the basic economic truth here. And yes, going out of business is one of the options. It's also true that a lack of some producers doesn't harm the consumer, either.
OK, time for Economics 101: Businesses that do not make a profit will shut down. If a business’s raw material costs rise, the increase is passed on to consumers in order to obtain a positive profit margin. It is also patently incorrect that a lack of producers doesn’t harm consumers. If that were the case, what is the point of preventing monopolies if the consumer isn’t harmed by a lack of competition?
Because there is a social contract that says we don't let the wealthy own everything and destroy society thereby. This is called Populist government, as a management system for resolving (without the use of violence) the conflicts of social demands with private ownership (as well as social demands upon public property).
Yet, when the in a period of high protectionary tariffs in the late 1800's, the gap between rich and poor was the widest it's ever been in the history of the US.
What happened was great for your dad, but you're just succumbing to the implied elitism in much domestic media today. Your dad's experience was unusual.
Actually, no. Per NAFTA, every worker who has their job moved to another country is eligable for the grant.
THAT is nowhere near the European model of social concern for workers made redundant.
You've got to learn to look beyond your nose, thenick.
Apparently you haven't noticed that European countries are beginning to do away with protection for workers. For example, in France, a law was recently passed that stated if you're under 25, you are an at will employee.
That's a great theory, but unlike a real theory there are no facts to support it. We've had significant dropping of trade barriers in America in the last 0.5 to 1.0 of a generation, yet the costs of living have literally skyrocketed during that time.
But since the end of the Cold War and the lowering of tariff barriers, the consumer price index hasn't significantly risen. In fact, it's averaged ~3% a year since 1990. Kind of blows your argument right out of the water when you look at the numbers, doesn't it?
Tariffing and taxes should be imposed to stop the Wal*Martians from destroying that sector of our society.
Do you have any idea why Walmart is so profitable? It's not because of their cheap imported goods, it's because they have a higher inventory turnover and better logistics system than any company in the US. Faster inventory turnover=more available capital.
Thenick, once you mature and see past your own greed, you'll understand the impact of my words.
You mean once I've been beaten down by life and become bitter at everyone who is more successful than myself, like you have, right? Thanks for the advice, Dad.
You can try to hole yourself up with a PhD, a corporate officership, a monstrous SUV, and a big home with an impressive security system in a gated community ... but all it ever takes is one .223 rifle bullet regardless of your protections. Not caring about the working class is only going to lead to the abrupt realization one day that they still know how to shoot.
HA! The joke's on the working class, because when it gets to the time for revolution, they won't be able to afford a gun.
Well, duh, by avoiding dumping of too-cheap products upon the American market.
Dumping is illegal right now. If a country is home to a company that is dumping products on the US market, they face trade sanctions, and not just on the industry the dumping is occuring in.
Tariffing-by-denial is supposed to support domestic production in the first place since the denial forces domestic consumers to pursue domestic producers. In cases where the products must be obtained (note that steel is a great example), then domestic commerce just proceeds like it had done in the past, and hopefully the adjustment vector will be noticed and the future will involve integration of the foreign product into the domestic market once the adjustment is made and the tariff dropped.
Ah, yes, the Dependency theory. That worked so well for countries in Latin America during the 1980's, aka, the Lost Decade. Skyrocketing inflation, caused by a lack of foreign competition and failed centralized planning, cleaned out the middle class in countries like Brazil and Bolivia. Inflation was so rampant in those countries that workers were paid three times a day because prices changed hourly.
Over time, prices will fall since a world's worth of producers will undoubtedly come up with better ideas for many things
Name a time in the past 100 years where technological innovation prospered in an environment of low competition. It hasn’t happened.
We don't need more rich. We need more independent middle class.
If you’d open your eyes and actually pay attention to what is going on in the world around you, you’d see that there is a burgeoning middle class in countries like China and India, where just a few years ago there was only poor and well-off. I’ll say it again: From 1990 to 2000, 300 million Chinese rose above the poverty line.
Being concerned about foreign tariffing of our production is either pointless (since tariffing is the natural function of government = sovereignty), or elitist (as an expression of concern for the lack of millionaires produced from globalist commerce).
No, being conserned about foreign tariffs is just common sense. The world’s economies have been interconnected since the rise of mercantilism and the actions of other countries have a serious impact on what happens in the US. You have no idea how much our economy is based on exports and how damaging the reactionary tariffs against our goods would be. Over $1.1 TRILLION of goods and services were exported last year alone. Even more damaging is the fact that those exports tend to be high tech goods created by high-paid employees. Putting up tariff barriers screws those workers who have personally invested in their education instead of just hopping into the first available job.
I also don't care about all those dipshit middle class who have pretensions of making themselves rich. There's nothing wrong with being middle class and people should STOP the shame of being so.
What you're arguing goes against everything our ancestors strived for when they left their home country in search of a better life. I can trace my lineage back to a single person who boarded a boat in England as an indentured servant in the hope that North America would provide more opportunities than his old home city of York.
So, what's to worry about if, say, Japan imposes a punitive tariff upon our steel production? Steel's still used in the USA in huge quantities. Fück the Nips in that case; with over 200 nations in the world, surely another foreign market can be found for that stream of steel.
Not only racist, but incredibly ignorant. The Japanese generally don't import steel from the US, so Japan would levy tariffs on something that we export heavily to their country. And if you really followed the steel industry, you'd understand that Japan is no longer the largest threat internationally, it's Brazil. They've got new, modern plants and a low labor cost. Soon it will be China, then probably somewhere in Africa.
I live the moral lifestyle, while they live the immoral one.
So you're in favor of legislating morality? Who decides what is a moral lifestyle and what is an immoral lifestyle?
Competing with near-slave-labor societies isn't moral. Hence, you don't "need" to compete thusly in the global marketplace. Once protections are put into place in this global market to protect Human rights (home, heat, food, prosperity, legal equality, etc.), THEN we can talk about a need to compete.
Milton Friedman theorized that economic freedom would lead to social freedom, and his theory was proven in Chile when economic freedom under the Pinochet regime lead to a collapse of his government and the installation of a democratic government.
And since when is prosperity a human right? It’s a great thing, but it’s not guaranteed. If you could point me towards the country where prosperity is guaranteed, I’d appreciate it.
Since tariffs are a natural function of a sovereign government, yes, you effectively did. There's nothing about being against tariffs that cannot be extrapolated to any government intervention in private commerce.
I don't know how to respond to this. Because I think one form of government regulation is hurtful to this country, I'm an anarchist?
US Constitution, Art.I, Sec.8: "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States; [...] To regulate commerce with foreign nations[.]"
Who wrote that document, again? Oh yeah, the founders. Egg, meet thenick's face.
Oh, I must have missed the part of that section where the founding fathers stated that tariffs could be used to prop up inefficient industries and guarantee that they make a profit. My mistake.
posted by thenick at 02:24 P.M. EST on Sat Sep 09, 2006 #
Syndicate ToledoTalk
