Qui-Gon was right about one thing.

This actually sounds more exciting than the Star Wars plot.

The "give the rich yet another economy crippling tax cut while still paying for two wars" clause could spark a public outcry not seen since the Rebels blew up the Deathstar.

GurneyHalleck: The "give the rich yet another economy crippling tax cut while still paying for two wars" clause could spark a public outcry not seen since the Rebels blew up the Deathstar.

"Free Trade" to corporate america is a euphemism for "Ship jobs overseas so I can take home a $10,000,000 yr. salary at the expense of my country".

We need a new Teddy Roosevelt to start smacking these assholes down, but obviously, that's a pipe dream.

Ohh boo-farkin-hoo. This clause pertains only to the goods and services used in the stimulus bill projects and makes total sense. What good does it do us if all the products used to produce these works come from other countries? That would turn this stimulus program into a massive expense. Creating jobs is not enough, we must insure that the money supports American industry. This is not protectionism, it's just the government stating that for these projects, it has decided to stick to vendors who meet certain criteria.

Saving a billion dollars on steel means we can spend a billion more on labor.

/or buy a billion dollars more of something else. The infrastructure work will still be done here, they aren't going to build a bridge in China and then fly it over here.

It's frustrating that people concerned with our trade situation are called "protectionists" when the reality of modern global commerce practically *guarantees* that first-world countries will have sustained trade deficits, which eventually guarantees the inevitable demise of their currencies. There's nothing wrong with free trade between equal partners -- but when one side is manipulating exchange rates and using slave labor, there's real problems, guys.

And when we're farking printing a trillion dollars to "save" the economy, you'd better believe that I expect that the bulk of that money will never line the pockets of foreign investors. They're already financing this by buying our debt, and that had better be enough for them.

HotLonelyTeenageGirl: "Free Trade" to corporate america is a euphemism for "Ship jobs overseas so I can take home a $10,000,000 yr. salary at the expense of my country".

This.


Snarfangel: Saving a billion dollars on steel means we can spend a billion more on labor.

Please tell me when, if ever, a corporation spent money on more labor at the expense of profit when a cost savings was realized?

Snarfangel: Saving a billion dollars on steel means we can spend a billion more on labor.

... because the steel is magically teleported out of the ground, refined, smelted, and tempered without any human interaction?

FTA: "Any student of history will tell you that one of the most significant mistakes of the 1930s is when the U.S. embraced protectionism," Lane said. "It had a cascading effect that ground world trade almost to a halt, and turned a one-year recession into the Great Depression."

He is referring to the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act, which was a response to industrial over-capacity in the US throughout the 20s. In essence they were trying to get more of American products sold in America by artificially over pricing imported goods. This caused European powers to place similar tariffs on American goods and brought both economies crashing down.

The Buy American clause of the stimulus package only impacts infrastructure projects that are paid for with money from the stimulus package. And unlike Smoot-Hawley it has no impact on any other forms of international trade. We are talking about a small percentage of imports being restricted which has no comparison to 30's tariff act that doubled the costs of almost all imported goods.

This is far cry from Depression Era protectionism.

Senescent Dawn: There's nothing wrong with free trade between equal partners -- but when one side is manipulating exchange rates and using slave labor, there's real problems, guys.

but protectionism isn't the solution to this.

if we tarriff or ban imports, other countries tarriff or ban our exports. so we end up making stuff we can't sell to anybody else. how is that effective?

besides violating trade agreements we made, protectionism always has consequences that will hurt our companies.

On a side note...American corporations have gone from "Protecting the business at all costs" to "Protecting the profits at all costs" in latter years.

Code_Archeologist: This is far cry from Depression Era protectionism

you think our trading partners are going to say, "oh, that's okay if it just applies to a few tens of billions of dollars worth of steel. we understand will make an exception."

no. they'll retaliate. remember, this is a global recession--their manufacturers are suffering, too, and can't afford to lose a market of any level of dollars.

the stimulus plan only makes sense if as much money stays in this country as possible. what's the farking point if we're just going to buy all the materials from somewhere else? why not just truck in a bunch of laborers from mexico to do the work too? maybe if we send a few hundred billion more dollars down there they'll start buying new fords.

Snarfangel: Saving a billion dollars on steel means we can spend a billion more on labor.

/or buy a billion dollars more of something else. The infrastructure work will still be done here, they aren't going to build a bridge in China and then fly it over here.

Of course not. They'll put it on a boat.

/Bay Bridge, check it out

albo: but protectionism isn't the solution to this.

if we tarriff or ban imports, other countries tarriff or ban our exports. so we end up making stuff we can't sell to anybody else. how is that effective?

Absolutely, but we aren't imposing tariffs, nor are we banning imports. We're using our economic stimulus package to primarily stimulate our economy -- what's inherently draconian or protectionist about that?

Burninate:

That's a keeper.

Senescent Dawn: We're using our economic stimulus package to primarily stimulate our economy -- what's inherently draconian or protectionist about that?

this isn't 1950 any more. our industries are inextricably tied into suppliers and markets in the global marketplace.

if we retreat into protectionism, even moderately, we hurt our own industries and encourage their markets to be protectionist themselves.

suddenly the fark independents are all worried about what other countries think.

doublesecretprobation: suddenly the fark independents are all worried about what other countries think

1. whose's a "fark independent?"
2. and it's not worrying about what they think, it's what they do in return

Bloody William: Snarfangel: Saving a billion dollars on steel means we can spend a billion more on labor.

... because the steel is magically teleported out of the ground, refined, smelted, and tempered without any human interaction?

No, because you can hire more people with a billion dollars than you employ buying a billion dollars worth of steel.

/though granted, you do employ fewer members of the steelworkers union.

albo: this isn't 1950 any more. our industries are inextricably tied into suppliers and markets in the global marketplace.

if we retreat into protectionism, even moderately, we hurt our own industries and encourage their markets to be protectionist themselves.

So do you oppose the stimulus bill, or would you have us end up shipping a good portion of a trillion dollars overseas?

Senescent Dawn: So do you oppose the stimulus bill, or would you have us end up shipping a good portion of a trillion dollars overseas?

i don't like much of this stimulus bill, correct. as for shipping money overseas, it's going over there regardless. as i mentioned above, US companies are tied into the global economy. they get supplies and materials overseas and sell finished products there. nothing we can do will change that without totally destroying then rebuilding the economy.

albo: 2. and it's not worrying about what they think, it's what they do in return

what about what we're going to do in return for what they're doing in return? and what about the retaliation for that? OMFG WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE!

doublesecretprobation: OMFG WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE!

and the morgue assistant will cut off our underoos and bag our jewelry

Opponents, including some of the biggest blue-chip names in American industry, say it amounts to a declaration of war against free trade

No, it means that you don't get to low ball the bid, save money by outsourcing the costs and the suck down some government money while screwing over the taxpayers. YET AGAIN.

If you want to stimulate our economy, you don't get to use foreign labor to do it. Hello!? OUR economy, not theirs!

albo: you think our trading partners are going to say, "oh, that's okay if it just applies to a few tens of billions of dollars worth of steel. we understand will make an exception."

Well, the four nations that we may import steel from are China, Russia, Japan, and India. None of these nations presents a risk to US companies that might get frozen out infrastructure projects within them.

China: already engages in protectionist practices and only imports knowledge assets.
Russia: doesn't import foreign construction services, because their own firms are mostly self sufficient.
Japan: doesn't have that much in the way of infrastructure projects, and requires any foreign corporation working there to open an office staffed by Japanese workers.
India: much like China engages in a type of protectionism and only imports knowledge assets.

Also... nearly all of the nations impacted by this downturn around the world are stepping back from globalization and adopting some protectionist measures.

albo: doublesecretprobation: OMFG WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE!

and the morgue assistant will cut off our underoos and bag our jewelry

OVER MY DEAD B...

Oh.

albo: US companies are tied into the global economy. they get supplies and materials overseas and sell finished products there. nothing we can do will change that without totally destroying then rebuilding the economy.

I understand where you're coming from, but you do realize that you're defending a system of trade that will -- predictably and inevitably -- destroy the world economy, right? We need to be talking about alternatives. Perhaps this stimulus bill isn't a good idea, but "protectionism LOL" isn't a really effective rebuttal to it, because what we're doing will lead us to ruin as surely as tariffs. It's just more insidious.

rcain: Ohh boo-farkin-hoo. This clause pertains only to the goods and services used in the stimulus bill projects and makes total sense. What good does it do us if all the products used to produce these works come from other countries? That would turn this stimulus program into a massive expense. Creating jobs is not enough, we must insure that the money supports American industry. This is not protectionism, it's just the government stating that for these projects, it has decided to stick to vendors who meet certain criteria.

No, that's essentially protectionism.

Senescent Dawn: but you do realize that you're defending a system of trade that will -- predictably and inevitably -- destroy the world economy, right

how's that? trade benefits all nations. we've known this since adam smith. it helps our consumers and builds markets for our industries.

enacting protectionism to prop up smokestack industies that can't compete globally due to opportunity cost is just wasting money.

Code_Archeologist: None of these nations presents a risk to US companies that might get frozen out infrastructure projects within them.

you think that if we slam the door on steel from these countries they'll just do the same for us? they'll put protective tarriffs not just on steel and iron, but on other stuff we export to them.

heck, right now we're in a tarriff war over blue cheese (new window)

I think this discussion would be more fun if discussed in the context of comparative advantage.

albo: how's that? trade benefits all nations. we've known this since adam smith. it helps our consumers and builds markets for our industries.

What we have in this current system is a situation where we can have the most advanced and automated facilities producing widgets in the poorest and most backwards countries. There is no way for nations with first-world standards to compete with the combined monster of artificial exchange rates, starvation-level worker wages, and technology allowing corporations to exploit these advantages. In Adam Smith's time, the gold standard prevented trade deficits from existing indefinitely, because they meant that an importer nation was in effect exporting tangible wealth. Now, not so much. We can't exist as a service-nation forever. We can only sustain our import industry for as long as the world wants to accept our dollars as a means of exchange. And as anyone can see, it's a ticking time bomb. I see no reason to accelerate it by sending even more money out of the country. Manufacturing WILL come back here -- it's a fundamental economic force. This stimulus bill might help give it a head start.

albo: Code_Archeologist: None of these nations presents a risk to US companies that might get frozen out infrastructure projects within them.

you think that if we slam the door on steel from these countries they'll just do the same for us? they'll put protective tarriffs not just on steel and iron, but on other stuff we export to them.

heck, right now we're in a tarriff war over blue cheese (new window)

Woah. Woah, woah, woah, woah, woah, WOAH!

We export things?

Snarfangel: I think this discussion would be more fun if discussed in the context of comparative advantage.

Don't be tryin' to learn us no economics! If there's anything I've learned from Fark it's that I don't need no fancy book learnin' to see that "trade" and "business" are little more than international conspiracies to keep me from inheriting Daddy's line job at the Studebaker plant. Now I've been replaced by some Chinaman, and I ain't got no dignity nor premium channels neither.

Senescent Dawn: albo: how's that? trade benefits all nations. we've known this since adam smith. it helps our consumers and builds markets for our industries.

What we have in this current system is a situation where we can have the most advanced and automated facilities producing widgets in the poorest and most backwards countries. There is no way for nations with first-world standards to compete with the combined monster of artificial exchange rates, starvation-level worker wages, and technology allowing corporations to exploit these advantages. In Adam Smith's time, the gold standard prevented trade deficits from existing indefinitely, because they meant that an importer nation was in effect exporting tangible wealth. Now, not so much. We can't exist as a service-nation forever. We can only sustain our import industry for as long as the world wants to accept our dollars as a means of exchange. And as anyone can see, it's a ticking time bomb. I see no reason to accelerate it by sending even more money out of the country. Manufacturing WILL come back here -- it's a fundamental economic force. This stimulus bill might help give it a head start.

except that the people currently benefiting from the status quo are going to resist changing our current system. they like how it works just fine, it's making them rich.

filth: rcain: Ohh boo-farkin-hoo. This clause pertains only to the goods and services used in the stimulus bill projects and makes total sense. What good does it do us if all the products used to produce these works come from other countries? That would turn this stimulus program into a massive expense. Creating jobs is not enough, we must insure that the money supports American industry. This is not protectionism, it's just the government stating that for these projects, it has decided to stick to vendors who meet certain criteria.

No, that's essentially protectionism.

Oh, so the US government should not be able to decide where or how the materials it uses in it's projects are produced? Are you really that supportive of "free trade' that we must outsource everything lest we are "protectionist".

This is nothing more than requiring all materials used on these projects to be produced in the US by american workers. That is not protectionist. It has no effect on the regular course of business or trade agreements. It's just the US Government acting as a consumer making a requirement that these projects use certain types of materials. A consumer has every right to make that choice, the US Government should be no different.

Snarfangel: I think this discussion would be more fun if discussed in the context of comparative advantage.


Traditional Ricardian trade theory has completely broken down because the link between profit motive and general welfare has been de-coupled since companies are no longer bound to the national interests of the their home countries. William J. Baumol has written some interesting works on this modern tectonic shift in trade relations that most economists, chanting their "Free Trade Always Good" mantra have blithely ignored.

Weaver95: except that the people currently benefiting from the status quo are going to resist changing our current system. they like how it works just fine, it's making them rich.

Sadly, yeah. I don't think that the heads of industry are stupid. They see a short-term profit and they snag it. It really doesn't help that CEOs aren't punished for f*cking up nowadays. No one thinks that the bill's gonna come due on their watch. Still, ya can only kick water uphill for so long. Looks like 2009 might be the end of the party. No great conspiracy, just a death by a thousand cuts.

rcain: filth: rcain: Ohh boo-farkin-hoo. This clause pertains only to the goods and services used in the stimulus bill projects and makes total sense. What good does it do us if all the products used to produce these works come from other countries? That would turn this stimulus program into a massive expense. Creating jobs is not enough, we must insure that the money supports American industry. This is not protectionism, it's just the government stating that for these projects, it has decided to stick to vendors who meet certain criteria.

No, that's essentially protectionism.

Oh, so the US government should not be able to decide where or how the materials it uses in it's projects are produced? Are you really that supportive of "free trade' that we must outsource everything lest we are "protectionist".

This is nothing more than requiring all materials used on these projects to be produced in the US by american workers. That is not protectionist. It has no effect on the regular course of business or trade agreements. It's just the US Government acting as a consumer making a requirement that these projects use certain types of materials. A consumer has every right to make that choice, the US Government should be no different.

Then it should spend my money more wisely. Best materials for the best price.

megan mcardle of the atlantic on this article:

"By the standards of Smoot-Hawley, this is paltry stuff. And by the standards of setting yourself on fire, sawing off your own leg with a nail file isn't so bad."

filth: Then it should spend my money more wisely. Best materials for the best price.

They can. Like any other government project, the contractors will be chosen by a bidding process. The big American corps that are upset by this are only upset because they can't produce stuff on the cheap overseas and maximize their profits. So the profit margins will be lower, but the overall volume sold will be higher, so it really is just sour grapes for companies like 3M.

And it's not just the manufacturers, but also the construction companies. By law, civil contractors must pay prevailing wage which means no minimum wage labor, every worker earns a livable wage. Once again, lower profit margins, but higher volume.

If the Government plays their cards right and works to insure that the money spent is spent effectively, the labor works package could be quite effective in curtailing unemployment and keeping local economies afloat while improving our national infrastructure.

However, I am extremely skeptical of any report that says that this entire nation's infrastructure rates a D. While I am sure there are many roads, bridges and buildings that are in need of repair, the majority I've seen are in decent condition.

rcain: However, I am extremely skeptical of any report that says that this entire nation's infrastructure rates a D

Consider the source of that report.

Snarfangel: Saving a billion dollars on steel means we can spend a billion more on labor.

/or buy a billion dollars more of something else. The infrastructure work will still be done here, they aren't going to build a bridge in China and then fly it over here.

They fabricate sections and bring them over here.

The Bay Bridge is being delayed specifically because of this. ^{(^)}

Heh, Conservatives only like protectionism when it means their kids don't have to share a school bus with with immigrant children.

I am extremely skeptical of any report that says that this entire nation's infrastructure rates a D.

I would only believe that if there were bridges and tunnels collapsing in major cities or something crazy like that!

Geez, this thread has turned into quite the Freepfap, hasn't it?

"I agree with your wargarbl, WARGARBL!"

It's like watching rats cling together as they're being pushed overboard.

The administration has not addressed the issue publicly, and sources close to the issue said it appears that a response is still being formulated awaiting poll results.

FTFT