[quote]J Eldred wrote:
“If they were not cheaper they would not be sold here.”
Because of the misconception. For instance: I went to the local hardware because I needed a pry bar. There were a few kinds and I was looking for an American made one. I found one and it was the same price as the foreigns; well actually it was 3 cents cheaper, but we get the point. There are many products like that out there. We just don’t know about it because all the shopping people do are at big national stores who adhere to the misconception.[/quote]
You do realise that the hardware store sets the price, and also negotiates a price with the supplier. They were probably taking a larger profit on the foreign made one than the US made one. And the fact that the US made one was a couple of cents cheaper is as likely to be a inventory control and pricing issue as anything else.
But i have a serious question to ask sort of on topic. Im not too well versed in global trade so bear with me.
Lets say we decide to become more competitive with our labor, poof we get rid of union limits and minimum wage laws.
The remainder of our (legal) manufacturing and (legal) farm labor is now working for a few dollars a day to compete with 3rd world workers.I suppose top end medical and scientific job wages would stay the same. But for the rest of the people whose wages now dropped 50+%, whats to force foreign food companies (which we depend on so heavily)to lower their prices to the point that those people can eat?
Whats the stop them from keeping their prices the same and thus high, since they can sell to the Euros and other 1st world nations, or at least keep them high for a few months until everyone savings dry up and put people in debt or die or somthing.
It doesn’t seem like we have the food production to feed ourselves or even quickly set up domestic food sources. So we end up like the nations were trying to compete with whose workers live off rice and shit?
[quote]PB-Crawl wrote:
i like this thread, it was funny.
But i have a serious question to ask sort of on topic. Im not too well versed in global trade so bear with me.
Lets say we decide to become more competitive with our labor, poof we get rid of union limits and minimum wage laws.
The remainder of our (legal) manufacturing and (legal) farm labor is now working for a few dollars a day to compete with 3rd world workers.I suppose top end medical and scientific job wages would stay the same. But for the rest of the people whose wages now dropped 50+%, whats to force foreign food companies (which we depend on so heavily)to lower their prices to the point that those people can eat?
Whats the stop them from keeping their prices the same and thus high, since they can sell to the Euros and other 1st world nations, or at least keep them high for a few months until everyone savings dry up and put people in debt or die or somthing.
It doesn’t seem like we have the food production to feed ourselves or even quickly set up domestic food sources. So we end up like the nations were trying to compete with whose workers live off rice and shit?[/quote]
I am pretty sure that the US is a net exporter of food.
Anyway I´d suggest that you stop ethanol subsidizing, that should reclaim a few acres for food production.
And the answer to your other question is competition unless you think it is possible that the entire food industry starts a giant conspiracy, which would be a remarkable feat, given the number of necessary participants.
orion wrote:
Oh Lord, why doest thou punish me so?
You are aware that there are whole courses of study called “economics”?
Ya know when I was in college I took a class on gender studies and they said that the fix for world peace was for everyone to stop being so masculine.
I didn’t believe them either.
You are aware that there are whole courses of study called “economics”?
Ya know when I was in college I took a class on gender studies and they said that the fix for world peace was for everyone to stop being so masculine.
I didn’t believe them either.
[/quote]
Well, I guess you have a point there.
That does not mean that make work programs can help stimulate an economy though.
That does not mean that make work programs can help stimulate an economy though.
I don’t claim to be a history buff, but to my understanding history proves it does.
Don’t get me wrong I’m not a fan of gov. interference. But it works.
[/quote]
Not really.
You do not see what you do not see, for it is unseeable.
So there.
Or, to be less cryptic, the government takes money away from some people and builds things.
If those things were the things people were to spend their money in the first place they would have done so without government intervention.
Therefore, government intervention is always a move towards being less productive.
The only problem is that people can point at the Hoover Dam but cannot point at the other, more productive things that would have been built had the government not built the dam.