Is Obama the next Herbert Hoover?
posted at 10:55 am on September 15, 2009 by Ed Morrissey
The last President to initiate a trade war during a recession wound up creating the biggest economic catastrophe in American history. Yet the current President appears to have ignored the lesson of Herbert Hoover and the Smoot-Hawley Act in slapping tariffs on China and its tire exports while the economy struggles to come back to life after a deep recession. The Wall Street Journal wonders where Barack Obama is leading the US, or whether Obama wants to lead at all:
The smell of trade war is suddenly in the air. Mr. Obama slapped a 35% tariff on Chinese tires Friday night, and China responded on the weekend by threatening to retaliate against U.S. chickens and auto parts. That followed French President Nicolas Sarkozy’s demand on Thursday that Europe impose a carbon tariff on imports from countries that don’t follow its cap-and-trade diktats. “We need to impose a carbon tax at [Europe's] border. I will lead that battle,” he said.
Mr. Sarkozy was following U.S. Energy Secretary Steven Chu, who has endorsed a carbon tax on imports, and the U.S. House of Representatives, which passed a carbon tariff as part of its cap-and-tax bill. This in turn followed the “Buy American” provisions of the stimulus, which has incensed much of Canada; Congress’s bill to ban Mexican trucks from U.S. roads in direct violation of Nafta, prompting Mexico to retaliate against U.S. farm and kitchen goods; and the must-make-cars-in-America provisions of the auto bailouts. Meanwhile, U.S. trade pacts with Colombia, Panama and South Korea languish in Congress.
Through all of this Mr. Obama has either said nothing or objected so feebly that Congress has assumed he doesn’t mean it. Despite his pro-forma demurrals, Mr. Obama’s actions and nonactions are telling the world that the U.S. is abandoning the global leadership on trade that Presidents of both parties have worked to maintain since the 1930s. His advisers whisper that their man is merely playing a little tactical domestic politics, but he is playing with fire, as the last 80 years of trade history should tell him.
Not only does this ignore the history of trade wars and recessions, which the Journal outlines, but it also ignores Obama’s own big-spending policies. Obama wants to spend trillions of dollars in deficits over the next ten years, especially on his overhaul of the health-care and energy industries in the US. That will take a lot of happy bondholders buying US debt, and for the last several years, that means China. What happens when China stops buying — or worse yet, starts selling what Treasuries they already hold?
If an American administration wanted to confront China on trade, it should have prepared itself by eliminating the need to sell debt. That administration would have pared down spending dramatically, lowered corporate taxes to allow for better competition in the global marketplace for American companies, and encouraged domestic investment by lowering capital-gains taxes. The Obama administration has done the exact opposite instead, leaving the US completely unprepared for a trade war against China, especially over tires, which impacts a mere 7,000 jobs in the US.
Bill Clinton, for all his faults, understood the power and the necessity of open trade. George Bush learned that lesson after a fumble on steel tariffs in 2001. No other president since Hoover has made the mistake of thinking that a trade war would help bolster the economy here in the US or abroad. Picking a fight with the US’s largest debtholder as we prepare to issue more debt in the next few years than we have over the course of the past 230 seems like a foolish, ignorant strategy — the worst of both worlds, with the worst possible outcomes.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2
Well this is pretty much an impeachable offense in my opinion.
petunia on September 15, 2009 at 11:43 AM
They laid an egg. :)
OldEnglish on September 15, 2009 at 11:43 AM
Nice, I can’t wait for the new mandate on tire tread levels that forces you to replace them with crappy, overpriced Union-made tires every 6 months.
I don’t know if every state has tough inspection standards like MA, but I can see this happening.
Slightly OT: I just heard on the radio today that MA will start mandating a certain level of green bio-fuel to be added to all home heating oil next year. I’m sure it’s been tested out on all boilers.
A tougher tread thickness requiremet isn’t that big of a stretch. I’m sure they can pay some university to fund a “study” to back up their claims as well.
“HELP! JANE, STOP THIS CRAZY THING!”
reaganaut on September 15, 2009 at 11:43 AM
But, Mr. Morrissey, didn’t you listen to Obama explaining to Joe the Plumber that this IS his mission—to spread the wealth around? Obama thinks this is his “worldly responsibility” to take from the rich and give to the poor/unfortunate/lazy.
Rovin on September 15, 2009 at 11:44 AM
Here is a update to my previous post.
http://www.canada.com/sports/Canada+fighting+move+sports+charter+flights/1980775/story.html
Clyde5445 on September 15, 2009 at 11:44 AM
“Say there boy”, “Watch doin’ there boy” (“Nice kid but dumb, dumb I say, as a box of rocks”)
Jeff from WI on September 15, 2009 at 11:44 AM
scary
blatantblue on September 15, 2009 at 11:45 AM
Fify
WordsMatter on September 15, 2009 at 11:46 AM
We need a CHICKEN CZAR.
Daggett on September 15, 2009 at 11:47 AM
Just minutes ago, on CNBC, the News Readers, News Presenters, the on air personalities, the experts were all giddy, giddy I say, over Bernake’s announcement that the recession is over.
Tralala la..Happy days are here again.. The Recession Is OVER!
The recession is over! (Technically)
Skandia Recluse on September 15, 2009 at 11:47 AM
The TCCU (Tasty Chickens in Cages Union) is in full support of China’s retaliation. The President of the TCCU stated, “China’s non-unionized chickens will rightly now suffer the consquences of China’s practice of dumping product’s on America’s shores.”
WashJeff on September 15, 2009 at 11:47 AM
Because the teacher’s union stopped teaching history.
MarkTheGreat on September 15, 2009 at 11:47 AM
Nobody realizes the effectiveness, and the extent of the Chinese Lobbyists…some day 50 years from now, a book will be written.
Listen, most every major company in the U.S., and the world, wants a piece of the most populated, and economic vibrate country in the world. An emerging economy,if on the ground floor, is paramount. Just take one company, and I have not Googled this, so you can check to see if I am correct. Say Gillette, what have they invested in China? I will wait for someone to correct me, but I bet it is billions…with anticipation of many billions (imagine selling a razor to everyone in China), do you think Gillette, the multi-national, multi-billion dollar conglomerate is going to allow a president to sanction China?
Replicate Gillette, GE, Intel, etc. and you can see the power…now take the auto industry, already destroyed, and fighting for the lives, they have nothing to lose so they fight.
The furniture industry did the same, waited until they were decimated before finally getting some co-operation.
In this case, Obama may have done the right thing (for the wrong reason), and WSJ is just worried that their businesses they represent will be caught up in this war…which should have been fought 20-40 years ago.
right2bright on September 15, 2009 at 11:48 AM
Snort. Mexican death-trap 18 wheelers on our roads? No, gracias. I think our farm and kitchen goods will survive Mexican retaliation. And it’ll be harder to truck in those “agents of retaliation” if their 18 wheelers aren’t rolling across the border, right?
Are the Juarez Cartel members planning on shooting up a field of tomatoes? LOL
funky chicken on September 15, 2009 at 11:49 AM
I forgot that KFC is huge in China. China is playing hard ball. However, the price hike on a two-piece chicken dinner could tick off KFC fans there.
mwbri on September 15, 2009 at 11:49 AM
Of course, unless it’s Howard Zinn style history or anything that plays the “social justice” angle.
Today, the rage is the “real” history, aka history as defined by socialists and America haters.
reaganaut on September 15, 2009 at 11:50 AM
Kentucky Fried Cat?
right2bright on September 15, 2009 at 11:50 AM
I just had picture of poor Obama sobbing, That genius George Bush, he set me up to fail! WAAAAAAAA! This is all his fault! Sob!”
petunia on September 15, 2009 at 11:50 AM
Lord Barry would not be purposefully trying to destroy the US would he? Nah! 3 more years…ugh.
ronsfi on September 15, 2009 at 11:51 AM
Correct.
It’s funny how quickly people forget that the WSJ wants our southern border wide open…if American workers have to compete with Mexicans for jobs, wages will plummet, thus raising corporate profits.
Kinda like shipping manufacturing to China has done.
funky chicken on September 15, 2009 at 11:52 AM
Do you own gold?
If you don’t, get some before China starts actually hoarding.
If you do, get some before China starts actually hoarding.
It’s safe to say that if China starts buying gold, demand for it will increase, and so will the price of Gold.
It’s also safe to say that if china starts selling treasuries then the dollar is hosed, and the price of gold (relative to the dollar… key point) will go up.
If either happens, people who hold dollars in the bank or cash on hand are screwed.
As for me, I don’t own much, but it’s as much as a college student like me can afford.
Chaz706 on September 15, 2009 at 11:54 AM
Never happened.
MarkTheGreat on September 15, 2009 at 11:54 AM
US credit shrinks at Great Depression rate prompting fears of double-dip recession
albill on September 15, 2009 at 11:56 AM
Ahhhhh Bernake shilling to be renominated by Obama. Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm. Recession over but unemployment growing. Now there is Orwellian logic for ya.
petunia on September 15, 2009 at 11:56 AM
Are Foreign Purchases of U.S. Treasury Bonds Being Faked?
The U.S. Government wants the public to believe that China, Japan and Europe are still happily buying U.S. debt to fund the American economic turnaround. The only problem is – they’re not…
The reality is that the Treasury changed the way U.S. debt is accounted for when purchased on the open market. U.S. debt selling on the open market can be considered as having been sold to “foreigners” even if the purchaser was the Federal Reserve! Voila! A sleight of hand by the U.S. Government, and China and Japan can appear to be buying debt while at the same time selling debt.
KentAllard on September 15, 2009 at 11:56 AM
You get it…maybe this from former Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration, Paul Craig Roberts, states: Here
He is basically against the tariff…and for good reason, because it is done for the “wrong” reason.
But for many years, as you pointed out, POTUS, one after another, has created this problem.
But we need to take a stand, and unfortunately we have an administration that doesn’t understand what to do, so they listen to who gives them money.
right2bright on September 15, 2009 at 11:57 AM
So the WSJ wanted the auto companies to get bailout funds and then use them to send manufacturing jobs overseas?
Why should Americans’ tax dollars support foreigners’ manufacturing jobs?
funky chicken on September 15, 2009 at 11:57 AM
Come on over to High Point, and walk around the empty manufacturing companies…and then tell the people who are out of work, it never happened.
right2bright on September 15, 2009 at 11:59 AM
Obama knows if he can tank/bankrupt/”Hoover” the economy, we will all be helplessly begging for Big Government to save us.
Obama’s long range plan (and he is well on his way) is to morph into a likeness of his buddy Hugo Chavez.
marybel on September 15, 2009 at 12:00 PM
Be sure and tell Paul Roberts he is wrong…I am sure you have more knowledge then him…after all you have “Bing” now.
right2bright on September 15, 2009 at 12:01 PM
Taking a country from prosperity to poverity is “change” isn’t it?
And didn’t the American people vote for “change” last election?
Be careful of what you wish for.
NoDonkey on September 15, 2009 at 12:02 PM
The good thing about gold, is that only a fixed amount is produced each year, and there is only a fixed amount in existence.
It would take China years and years to really horde gold.
reaganaut on September 15, 2009 at 12:03 PM
LBJ, Camelot, Lincoln, Reagan, FDR, … Washington.
Upstater85 on September 15, 2009 at 12:04 PM
I’m no expert, but those same news readers at CNBC also appeared to confuse shrinking profit margins at food retailers with ‘deflation’ in the food industry.
My question is, is the economy really rebounding or is it just inflation pushing the numbers up making it appear that sales, and GDP, are growing? Unit sales up? Production up?
Skandia Recluse on September 15, 2009 at 12:05 PM
This is all part of the plan, Komrads…
HadithHarry on September 15, 2009 at 12:06 PM
I ABSOLUTELY believe that. Crazy, but I can find no other plausible explanation.
marklmail on September 15, 2009 at 12:06 PM
True true, but what if they start buying the gold others already own or worse buying a good chunk/most of the gold that is being produced this year and next?
Demand for gold will still rise for buyers other than the Chinese government. If demand still rises, that still leads to higher prices (due to the very limited supply).
Further more, there’s still the U.S. Treasuries they own. They dump those and it’s game over for the dollar.
Chaz706 on September 15, 2009 at 12:12 PM
http://www.asianews.it/index.php?l=en&art=16329&geo=6&size=A
davidk on September 15, 2009 at 12:12 PM
The Chinese have been systematically violating the spirit and the letter of trade law since we began trading with them during Nixon. No one has ever whacked them with a roled up newspaper because of legitimate fears that a trade war would harm our economy. This has, however, emboldened the Chinese, who are probably the most arrogant government on earth (with the possible exception of Venezuala). Neither side will rush to a trade war; it worth the risk to send a message that we’re getting (a little, anyway) serious about the trade thing.
Bleeds Blue on September 15, 2009 at 12:19 PM
If he was smart enough, and I don’t think he is.
I just thinks he doesn’t understand the total problem, he only looks at things through his experiences, and those are very minor.
He has never had a chance to circulate among some of the economic giants, he was only off the streets for a couple of years.
I really think he is just “winging” it, thinking his oratory will carry him.
Much more dangerous, then a man with a plan. If it was a plan, it could be counter acted…but you can’t out guess a fool.
right2bright on September 15, 2009 at 12:19 PM
Obama wasn’t alive when Hoover was President, therefore, in Obama’s world, Hoover’s presidency didn’t happen.
Dark Star on September 15, 2009 at 12:28 PM
Thanks for your cogent analysis on the currency aspect of the problem in this thread. Part of the problem with currency analysis is thinking in two directions at once and evaluating the effect of devaluation and relative value.
In the Roberts article, I think you missed a point that needs addressing: “Today, however, about half of the so-called US imports from China are the offshored production of US companies for their American markets. The US companies produce in China, not because of the exchange rate, but because labor, regulatory, and harassment costs are so much lower in China. Moreover, many US firms have simply moved to China, and the cost of abandoning their new Chinese facilities and moving production back to the US would be very high.”
After thinking about this in the context of labor union demands and refusal of American companies to repatriate profits, might this trial-balloon strategy be a way to force American companies to declare domestic profits and pay taxes on those profits? I think so!
I paid attention also to the yuan revaluation strategy (upwards) which would have the same effect as “dollar dumping” without dumping dollars.
This trial balloon was, IMHO, incorrectly timed.
ExpressoBold on September 15, 2009 at 12:42 PM
obama wants to destroy our economy, so he can rebuild it in
a socialisthis image…create a crisis…seize power….right4life on September 15, 2009 at 11:02 AM
FIFY
Jed_Eckert on September 15, 2009 at 12:43 PM
Hoover… Carter… hey Barack, isn’t it about time to start comparing yourself to Reagan again? Gotta maintain control of the dialogue, after all!
Red Cloud on September 15, 2009 at 12:45 PM
The last section of “A History of the American People” by Paul Johnson has an interesting analysis of the events leading up to the Great Depression.
-
B.O. is going down the same path.
-
The book is a great read (970 pages) – I highly recommend it to everyone.
-
In the last 40 pages there is an analysis of political correctness and the 1960′s & forward decline of American culture.
-
“Ask not for whom the bell tolls”
-
esblowfeld on September 15, 2009 at 12:46 PM
I don’t think Obama is really running things…
He’s so busy making speeches, and flying around, that there is NO way he is busy studying problems, and making decisions.
Others, somewhere… maybe staff… maybe outside the Whitehouse… are making the calls.
Problem is that we have no idea who these people are, and what their Goals are…
Romeo13 on September 15, 2009 at 12:47 PM
The United States can only be remade in the imagine of its creator (Obama) when it’s destroyed first.
moonsbreath on September 15, 2009 at 12:47 PM
Or is that damn Obie?
Mangy Scot on September 15, 2009 at 12:49 PM
The safety record for Mexican long haul trucks is comparable to US long haul trucks.
MarkTheGreat on September 15, 2009 at 1:05 PM
If wages fall, prices will fall. Profits will stay the same.
MarkTheGreat on September 15, 2009 at 1:06 PM
Never said that companies didn’t go out of business. I said that the “dumping” never happened. Too many people believe that dumping occurs whenever a foreign company makes a product for less than a US company.
MarkTheGreat on September 15, 2009 at 1:09 PM
No, Bush was the Hoover. Obama is the FDR. Viva enlightened fascism!
spmat on September 15, 2009 at 1:10 PM
Well at least Hoover finally figured out he was foolish and incompetent–doubt that realization will ever penetrate Obama’s ego.
jeanie on September 15, 2009 at 1:14 PM
thanks, God, for explaining everything.
Got any proof? An actual example or two?
Janos Hunyadi on September 15, 2009 at 1:24 PM
mwbri on September 15, 2009 at 11:49 AM
It’s finger rickin’ good.
elderberry on September 15, 2009 at 1:25 PM
He’s going to wish he was as popular as Hoover when this is over.
Vashta.Nerada on September 15, 2009 at 1:32 PM
..the next Herbert Hoover. I’m thinking he’ll be the next J. Edgar Hoover. I mean, maybe Michelle will lend him that sleeveless number, the $6,000 purse, and the $500 sneakers for their next New York date night.
VoyskaPVO on September 15, 2009 at 1:32 PM
I hope he is just Herbert Hoover. What I fear is he is Chavez/Mussoloni.
angryed on September 15, 2009 at 1:34 PM
Technically, if wages fall, prices will fall, and profits may go up or down, depending upon the change in wages and prices.
Vashta.Nerada on September 15, 2009 at 1:35 PM
If profits rise, then more people will start producing the product, which will force prices down, until profits return to the normal rate.
MarkTheGreat on September 15, 2009 at 1:42 PM
Will reality do?
MarkTheGreat on September 15, 2009 at 1:43 PM
Probably – what I was getting at is that is not mathematical. Wages falling does not equal increased profit, and prices may fall further or less than accouted for in the wage change.
Vashta.Nerada on September 15, 2009 at 2:00 PM
Some economists have said that Smoot-Hawley wasn’t a big factor in the Depression. The question is what percentage of Obama’s advisers are such economists (and whether he listens to the others).
calbear on September 15, 2009 at 2:04 PM
If China is subsidizing our products, god bless them.
jhffmn on September 15, 2009 at 2:04 PM
If China is willing to tax their citizens in order to subsidize our consumption, then God bless them.
MarkTheGreat on September 15, 2009 at 2:06 PM
This is a very liberal view of business. If American companies are investing billions in entering the Asia market, WE are investing billions in entering the Asia market. WE are the American corporations. Who owns American corporations? We do! Our 401ks and pensions are invested in them. We either are their employess or do business with them.
We are the businesses they represent!!!
jhffmn on September 15, 2009 at 2:16 PM
Interesting, you have an excellent point.
And I said, look around High Point, and learn a few things.
When you price something at 70% of its cost, regardless of loss, that is dumping.
They did that for decades…they did that to steel, which is why in 1983 Reagan did basically the same thing as Obama is doing…they were buying raw materials, converting it for about 70 cents on the dollar, then flooding the market. All the while we were imposing more regulations (aexpressobold pointed out) making it more difficult for us to upgrade our plants and compete…however, even with the upgrade, they would have just undersold us.
Their money is not traded, so they float it arbitrarily against ours.
Apparently you can only comprehend one sentence at time.
Try the rest of the post, where after undercutting our raw materials, then they take over production, driving our steel, furniture, etc. out of business….sheesh…
right2bright on September 15, 2009 at 2:22 PM
Who? Whom says that S-H was not a major factor–or the primary factor–in bringing on the Great Depression?
Janos Hunyadi on September 15, 2009 at 2:27 PM
Good thing they weren’t doing that.
BTW, pricing something at 70% of your cost isn’t dumping either.
Reagan impossed tariffs for the sole reason that congress would have over rode any veto. It was a 100% political act. It was a move to protect unions, nothing more, nothing less.
MarkTheGreat on September 15, 2009 at 2:28 PM
What is this–a Zen koan seminar? What reality, genius?
Yours? maybe you should explain what that is………..
Janos Hunyadi on September 15, 2009 at 2:29 PM
No, the investment and taxes are taken overseas…because the Chinese offer advantages that our country can’t offer.
Like the aforementioned money evaluation.
They use “tariffs” to stop us from competing, but we can’t do that to them? They just use government subsidized money to do it.
Glad you think moving our business offshore because we are not allowed to compete “onshore” is good….how is your 401k doing the past 18 months?
I don’t understand your “liberal” comment when dealing with a socialist country…but taking money offshore, not expanding our manufacturing like we should be is good for the country, and allowing price dumping on our shores is good for the economy, you and I disagree.
right2bright on September 15, 2009 at 2:29 PM
You are way out of your league on this subject…if you don’t understand the simplest terms of price dumping by the Chinese. Spend about 20 years competing with them, then get back to some of us.
Good grief…I am actually responding to his inane posts, it dumbs me down. Please, get educated in this matter, then get back to posting, believe me, your posts will change.
Reagan was hardly a union protectionist…remember the air controllers…good grief I did it again, responded to a foolish comment.
right2bright on September 15, 2009 at 2:33 PM
Hoover: Technocrat, worshipped at the altar of social engineering and rule by a select “smartest in the room” group.
Obama: Technocrat, worships at the altar of social engineering and rule by a select “smartest in the room” group.
Hoover: Studied engineering, made a name organizing relief efforts for Europe (esp. Belgium) before the US entered WW1, confirming his beliefs.
Obama: Studied law, made a name organizing community efforts for cities (esp. Chicago), confirming his beliefs, before his most influential organization was caught violating child-labor laws ( ::cough:: ).
Hoover: Instigated top-down “rescue” of a meltdown-stricken economy that backfired and kicked off the greatest economic disaster in the history of mankind, enabling his successor to appoint a number of economic advisors known collectively as “the Dictators,” and perpetuate the greatest seizure of liberties since the suspension of Habeas Corpus in the US Civil War, before most (though shamefully not all) of his efforts were rolled back by the courts and Congress in the years bookending the greatest “diplomatic disaster” in the history of mankind.
Obama: Instigated top-down “rescue” of a meltdown-stricken economy that backfired and watch this space…
Blacksmith on September 15, 2009 at 2:35 PM
I don’t see how purchasing raw materials or a finished product would make a difference in the scenario you outlined. Either way, you are speaking of buying something from us, and them selling the same thing to someone else for cheaper.
That doesn’t quite make sense. Are you trying to say they are subsidizing production in Brazil by selling them our raw materials at a loss to undercut American business or what?
I’m not sure that would really fly. We could just buy the raw materials we produced back from them on the open market at less than what we sold it for, which again would be like free moneys!
jhffmn on September 15, 2009 at 2:37 PM
What tariffs did Reagan impose?
Janos Hunyadi on September 15, 2009 at 2:53 PM
Steel and auto mostly.
MarkTheGreat on September 15, 2009 at 3:05 PM
Only back then, Japan was the evil boogy man who was intent on taking over the US industrial base.
MarkTheGreat on September 15, 2009 at 3:06 PM
Janos Hunyadi on September 15, 2009 at 2:29 PM
I did. See the 1:42 post.
MarkTheGreat on September 15, 2009 at 3:07 PM
right2bright on September 15, 2009 at 2:33 PM
I’m quite aware that people feel that nobody has the right to be better or cheaper than we are. And if they manage to, we should punish the US consumer by locking cheap products out of the US.
MarkTheGreat on September 15, 2009 at 3:08 PM
The oxymoron of comments.
tom on September 15, 2009 at 3:08 PM
Captain Ed, you aren’t being fair. Fair to Herbert Hoover, that is. Unlike President Obama, Herbert Hoover had a rather impressive and distinguished list of accomplishments before he became President.
Orson Buggeigh on September 15, 2009 at 3:10 PM
Okay, manufacturing 101…because unlike others I believe you are sincere.
*
An example (I have to say this, it is made up):
DuPont sells plastic polymer beads for manufacturing an auto part.
China comes in and buys them for x yaun, converted to dollars (the yuan is tied to U.S. Dollars)…they convert it (about 60+% material costs), then with their govt. subsidies, and lack of environmental controls, and small taxes, they produce the headlight lens. But they sell it back to G.M., but at what price.
Well, they take the material, and it is 70+% of the cost, and they discount it 30% because they are subsidized, and set their own internal worth of the yuan (since it is not traded internationally), then they have the low wages (which is only about 15% of the cost) and then they have little govt. fees and licensing (overhead of about 15%), unlike us.
They end up selling it for 30% less to G.M., no one in America can compete because our dollar is traded, and our govt. doesn’t support business.
So the lens manufacturer can’t compete, they eventually go out of business, then DuPont says, I know, we will build a plant over in China because that is where so much of our business is, and we won’t have to pay taxes, or worry about environmental goof balls picketing our plants.
So we lose manufacturing, lose jobs, lose taxes, and strengthen a foreign competitor. Then DuPont Chinese plant begins selling it back to the U.S. at the going rate, making 30% profit.
Simplified, but that is the cost of having a government that is not supportive of business.
right2bright on September 15, 2009 at 5:56 PM
One more exasperating time…I am not talking about “better or cheaper”, I am talking about the manipulation of currency in the purpose of manufacturing. The end game is to control the supply, first by purchasing raw materials at a “discount”, then converting them and undercutting the market to drive the competitors out of business.
If you can’t see this, or you don’t understand this, then you really don’t have any understanding of international business…no offense, but this is really very basic Chinese Business 101.
I understand you not wanting to backtrack, so I am more concerned that others pick up you little nuggets and actually think that their is substance.
right2bright on September 15, 2009 at 6:07 PM
you’re not a fool, but you’re on a Fool’s Errand: ‘Mark’ is blowing smoke and dodging specifics.
Janos Hunyadi on September 15, 2009 at 6:17 PM
Thanks, I am posting more to others more sincere that maybe need clarification.
It just isn’t about “buying and selling”, it is much deeper then that.
Mark won’t understand, but others will and investigate and realize that this has been going on for years, and it has to stop.
right2bright on September 15, 2009 at 6:47 PM
Hoover built dams and thried to put people to work
Obama funds ACORN and builds whorehouses and puts underage illegal aliens to work
A kinda sorta comparison by Axelrod standards
bluegrass on September 15, 2009 at 9:52 PM
The old monopolies were Americans monopolizing American production and selling below cost until competitors were dead.
The new monopolies are American resellers working with Chinese producers to sell below cost until competitors selling American goods must switch to Chinese produced goods to compete, at which time, the biggest American reseller wins the marketing monopoly, and competing distributors die off.
The crime is the obscene profits made by the distributors selling cheap Chinese crap at high American quality prices under virtual monopoly
They are raping the American public and selling them junk that falls apart of poisons their kids, and taking in dollars that are shrinking faster than you can say Depression
Two very interesting Depression scenarios,
US credit shrinks at Great Depression rate prompting fears of double-dip recession
and
The Economy Cannot Grow if Credit Keeps Shrinking
entagor on September 16, 2009 at 1:22 AM
I get what you are trying to convey, but it isn’t quite like that.
Obscene profits is countered by others competing, few companies make “obscene” profits, whatever that is.
The “old” monopolies were kept in check by the Gov. Laws like the Robinson/Patman Act, helped keep prices competitive.
Some of the products from China are superior, like finishes on furniture…they have no EPA to contend with.
right2bright on September 16, 2009 at 6:15 AM
right2bright on September 15, 2009 at 6:07 PM
Alleged manipulation of currency.
Alleged dumping.
Study some real economics and you will find out how hard both of the tactics actually are.
For the present, they are really nothing more than excuses used by those who don’t want to compete, and who want the rest of us to pay for their ineptness.
MarkTheGreat on September 16, 2009 at 8:43 AM
Just because you can’t deal with econ 101 is no excuse to start throwing insults.
MarkTheGreat on September 16, 2009 at 8:43 AM
That wasn’t an insult, it was advice…and you have proven the advice is warranted.
If I come up with “alleged” dumping will you quit HotAir and posting on here? For money manipulation (which I have already posted and linked)?
You say it never existed, if I show you international sanctions against China, then you will quit?
I didn’t think so, now sit down, you have been moved to the back of the room…
right2bright on September 16, 2009 at 10:24 AM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2