Capitalism is not sending jobs and money overseas - Trump

CaptainObvious said:
You're right, kind of. The problem is if the guy putting the truck together can't afford to buy the truck, that's a problem. Henry Ford figured that out and made himself a ton of money.
Here's the issue as I see it. All of these semi-skilled jobs are being replaced with technology or offshore workers. Okay, what do you do with all those people? Re-train? Re-train for what? Everybody isn't capable of being an engineer, and while that would be a great field for some to pursue, there aren't enough really high skilled positions to accommodate the entire workforce. It's a problem, it's been a growing problem since the 70's, and there isn't anyone that has come up with the fix.
Trickle down is a fantasy. It's as much of a fantasy as democrats creating foreign policy based upon how they wish things were. If there are no jobs for the average Joe, and the Board Boyz aren't willing to carry some dead weight on their payroll, and you're going to charge 35K for a f'n Chevy, and 250K for a f'n 3 bedroom home, something has got to give. What's giving is the complete and total separation of the actual economy and a market that is supposed to reflect that economy. You end up with what we have. A very few making boatloads of money while the masses fall further and further behind. People aren't going to just lay down and die. And then people wonder why the Bern has such an appealing message to those folks. It ain't real hard to figure out.
More...


Yes, unskilled labor is screwed in a world economy. There's no question about that.
They're at the bottom of the work force and have no leverage. Except maybe at the ballot box.
They are going to receive the lowest wages in America. How could it be otherwise?

But here's the thing. Why do people on the bottom of the labor force think they should be able to buy the avg new car that costs 35g? Why should they be able to buy the avg new house that goes for 250g? Why should their health care coverage include everything from sex change reassignment to the newest and best mri machines that cost the doc a million dollars or the newest drug that goes for a grand a pill? It just doesn't compute. Bottom earners can't live an average life.

As far as protectionist policies, companies always do better with them. Company execs are the ones lobbying for it. They make more profits if they have no competition. But that only works for awhile. Eventually, because they get lazy with no competition, they get so far behind what the rest of the world offers that their business will suffer.
So if they don't get any protection from competition, they have to win in the marketplace and make the changes necessary and that often includes offshoring. This is their fallback option. Not their first choice. Their first choice was protection. If they don't move to where they can get a better deal on production costs, then they lose in the marketplace. Sales and profits will suffer.

I guess it's all a matter of philosophy, but mine is that a free mkt will work better than a gov't run mkt. Besides that, I don't think gov't has any business telling me what to buy or anything else.
 
fhl said:
Yes, unskilled labor is screwed in a world economy. There's no question about that.
They're at the bottom of the work force and have no leverage. Except maybe at the ballot box.
They are going to receive the lowest wages in America. How could it be otherwise?

But here's the thing. Why do people on the bottom of the labor force think they should be able to buy the avg new car that costs 35g? Why should they be able to buy the avg new house that goes for 250g? Why should their health care coverage include everything from sex change reassignment to the newest and best mri machines that cost the doc a million dollars or the newest drug that goes for a grand a pill? It just doesn't compute. Bottom earners can't live an average life.

As far as protectionist policies, companies always do better with them. Company execs are the ones lobbying for it. They make more profits if they have no competition. But that only works for awhile. Eventually, because they get lazy with no competition, they get so far behind what the rest of the world offers that their business will suffer.
So if they don't get any protection from competition, they have to win in the marketplace and make the changes necessary and that often includes offshoring. This is their fallback option. Not their first choice. Their first choice was protection. If they don't move to where they can get a better deal on production costs, then they lose in the marketplace. Sales and profits will suffer.

I guess it's all a matter of philosophy, but mine is that a free mkt will work better than a gov't run mkt. Besides that, I don't think gov't has any business telling me what to buy or anything else.
More...
man, you're on a roll. One side says there is no such thing as pure capitalism, the other side is fighting for a purer capitalism.
 
The main reason a new car costs $35k is that the government has mandated so many costly features. The fuel economy mandate alone has forced a total redesign of cars and trucks. We get tiny unsafe cars that get good gas mileage in a world awash in crude oil.
 
AAAintheBeltway said:
The main reason a new car costs $35k is that the government has mandated so many costly features. The fuel economy mandate alone has forced a total redesign of cars and trucks. We get tiny unsafe cars that get good gas mileage in a world awash in crude oil.
More...
all I want is a seatbelt exemption. I'd be happy to pay for my own death if they would let me have my old bench seat back where I could sleep if I drank too much.
 
AAAintheBeltway said:
The main reason a new car costs $35k is that the government has mandated so many costly features. The fuel economy mandate alone has forced a total redesign of cars and trucks. We get tiny unsafe cars that get good gas mileage in a world awash in crude oil.
More...
Would you have any meaningful details on how much more it costs to make a fuel efficient car as compared to an inefficient one? And if you're so big on corporate productivity and efficiency, whatever the human cost, then why question the output of efficient products?
 
We can all debate until we're blue in the face about who is to blame and which party has a viable fix, but I know this. If you're going to make decisions that will grow the underclass, you shouldn't be surprised when the need for social programs expand exponentially.
 
I think we are also missing the point that if you tariffs work you can cut income tax rates or eliminate them.

We are also forgetting that there was predatory trade and dumping... which did not get not only eliminated profits for executives... it eliminated industries and jobs. In this case tariffs would allow people to have manufacturing jobs they should have had instead of being on govt handouts.

Its all about how they are structured. I also know the current way of doing things has really worked out poorly for the taxpayers and working class of this country.

So why not eliminate income taxes and set up tariffs to bring industries back home.
 
CaptainObvious said:
We can all debate until we're blue in the face about who is to blame and which party has a viable fix, but I know this. If you're going to make decisions that will grow the underclass, you shouldn't be surprised when the need for social programs expand exponentially.
More...
the underclass is growing everywhere we send our jobs to. The only debate is who is the underclass. And those jobs go to the underclass who is most capitalistic.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top