Via Crooks and Liars (video cafe):
We have gone, when Reagan came into office we were the largest exporter of manufactured goods and the largest importer of raw materials on the planet. And the largest creditor. More people owed us money than anybody else in the world. Now just twenty eight years later we're the largest importer of finished goods, manufactured goods, exporter of raw materials which is kind of the definition of a third world nation and we're the most in debt of any country in the world. This is the absolute consequence of Reaganomics.
Posts
12 comments:
What about organized labor's hatred for workers? Workers are forced to pay dues and political money, whether or not it meets the workers' interest. It would not be a bad idea at all to make this completely voluntary.
An oldie, but a goodie.
Wickipedia:
"Members of most labor unions in the United States pay a portion of their wages to their local to support the union's internal government, pay for any legal representation, and contribute to a strike fund. Many unions also spend some of their members' dues to lobby and campaign for politicians they support."
I know of no union member that was forced to pay money over and above dues to a candidate as you imply.
Union members choose their leadership by vote. Leaving the choices up to their leaders as to candidates to support.
Majority rule is only a foreign idea to Republicans in the senate, and the United States Supreme Court in the 2000 election.
Also, I find it disturbing that you imply that union membership is being forced on people. As if there are vans traveling around Detroit scooping up poor unsuspecting souls and forcing them to pay dues to a organization that they had no intention of joining.
Workers generally apply for jobs in hopes of gaining employment. The fact that some jobs are union is a plus to them as they hope to enjoy a more fair wage, and benefits that many non union workers lost years ago.
@wikipedia: "Many unions also spend some of their members' dues to lobby and campaign for politicians they support."
@agno: "I know of no union member that was forced to pay money over and above dues to a candidate as you imply."
I am referring to exactly what you described in the Wikipedia quote.
@agno: "Also, I find it disturbing that you imply that union membership is being forced on people."
I do not merely imply it. I am pointing out that it is the rule in a "closed shop" situation.
In a "closed shop" situation, such as Michigan auto factories with the UAW, and public schools, workers have no choice. They must pay dues to the union, or will be fired. This is force.
@agno: "As if there are vans..."
No vans. The problem of the force happens when someone applies at a job, and finds out that the job includes hard-earned wages being taken (stolen?) to support candidates and causes that in roughly half the time, the workers do not even support.
If the payment of dues were made entirely voluntary, and you could not be fired for not paying dues, then things would be a lot more fair for the workers.
After all, shouldn't a person be hired and fired from a job based on real relevant factors, rather than the political candidtes they support?
@agno: "The fact that some jobs are union is a plus to them as they hope to enjoy a more fair wage"
It can be a plus or a minus, depending on the situation (including the fact that workers with exception skills are often "dragged down" by the so-called fairer wage of the union: they can be paid more based on merit if not for the union wage which is lower). Which is why it would be a good idea to make union membership entirely voluntary. Give the power to the worker.
Also.... nothing you describe fits "third world nation". As for Reaganomics, Clinton increased the national debt even more than Reagan did.
What happened during this period was that many other countries became pretty good at manufacturing things. These countries even became better at making some things than the U.S. did.
How do you combat this? I see some possibilities
1) bomb the competing contries that are good at manufacturing back into the stone age.
2) Erect tariffs, so Americans are forced to buy shoddy overpriced goods in situations where better goods from overseas would be available.
3) Reduce the burdensome regulations that force U.S. manufacturs to close (these have grown radically during this period), and reduce the excessively high taxation that also discourages manufacturers from competing in the U.S.
-------------
I choose option 3. Options 1 and 2 are no good at all.
If and when "union made" represents an element of quality instead of merely higher costs and shoddy workmanship, GM will be able to compete with Toyota in the world markets. Until then subsidizing a dead industry with taxpayer dollars is merely stupid.
I rarely see a vehicle in Costa Rica that has been manufactured in the USA. They don´t stand up to the rigorous conditions and are too difficult to repair and maintain.
Factories don´t close in the USA because they are regulated or taxed. They close because they fail to make a profit.
Any mention of the actor-president must include his decisions to raid his neighbors. Reagan proved that we are a country whose #1 response to problem-solving is violence, as illustrated above.
It's hard to make a profit when your federal, state, and local governments are stealing it through confiscatory tax policies and excessive regulation.
Unless and until GM, Ford, and Chrysler kill off the UAW and dump their legacy costs onto the American taxpayers, they will never be able to compete against foreign-owned but American-made competition. GM employs some 96,000 people but is paying the health and retirement benefits of some 1 million retirees and their widows. No wonder they're losing $1,500 with every car they sell.
Of course, this illustrates in rather stark terms exactly what we'll face nationwide as Social Security and Medicare go bankrupt as our aging baby boomers retire in droves.
Presumably this blog will endorse massive new tax increases on wage-earners as the answer to this ticking time bomb.
DCuz
@el grillo: "Reagan proved that we are a country whose #1 response to problem-solving is violence, as illustrated above."
That is neither illustrated above, nor in actual history.
D-grades:
"How do you combat this? I see some possibilities
1) bomb the competing contries that are good at manufacturing back into the stone age."
Reading is one of the early skills I was taught, and have become quite good at.
Of course, bombing is probably not considered a violent act in the USA since the perpetrators don't actually look the children in the eyes when they open the bomb doors.
This was not simply not Reagan's philosphy.
Libya, for example, was not a manufacturing competitor (or even a potential manufacturing competitor), and was only bombed by the U.S. as a last resort after it attacked Americans and promised to do more of the same. As for "children in the eyes when they open the bomb doors", Kadaffy's child did die, but it was not the US's fault that he risked his child's life by keeping her in a military command post while launching attacks that invited response.
Then consider the rising manufacturing might of Japan during the Reagan era. I've come up dry in news reports of President Reagan ordering bombing runs on Japan. That's required to even come close to the possibility number 1 that I mentioned. But I'll be gracious and give you a chance to come up with some.
In you reading skills attempt, you missed the part about Reagan.
@agnosticrat: "Majority rule is only a foreign idea to Republicans in the senate, and the United States Supreme Court in the 2000 election."
Actually, in regards to 2000, the Supreme Court had nothing to do with that. The problem lay with the Constitution, and its description of the Electoral College. Bush won that year the same way Obama won, and the same way Clinton won before Bush.
dmarks/DMOnline, get your facts straight. The Supreme Court incorrectly applied a logic to their decision which they also stated could not be used as precedent in any other case, meaning they knew their decision was flawed. If equal protection applied to voting we'd having a nationwide system for casting and counting ballots which we do not thus their argument for inserting themselves in a state-mandated recount was actually in opposition to the Constitution.
Post a Comment