The Republican Primary Race Is Filling Up

[T.Lex]

With all of that, how can we compete with china? We can't, but we can take some baby steps toward evening the imbalance, like rewarding products made in the USA, and punishing products that aren't; the government has the power to tax, and they aren't shy about using it to modify our behavior in a plethora of other areas, why not here?

What you're talking about here are tariffs. They are indeed part of international trade. Every country has them, and every country uses them as bargaining chips. You try to get the other country open to your country's goods/services, and they try to do the same. Total game theory.

So, follow this through: our current system of tariffs is in place and no one is really talking about changing it. Basically, it seems to work for most businesses, otherwise they'd push to change it.

It will require a decent amount of effort, but I encourage you to read up on the system and come back with things you'd like to change. I could get behind your policy assertions, but arranging them the way you want will be tricky.

You can't deny that Trump is a negotiator, and leveraging our huge market, and innovation, maybe we can get some more favorable trade deals, to offset our huge disadvantages,

What do you perceive as our disadvantages?

or we can continue on the path that the Bush's, and Clinton's have set us on, a totally service based economy, where we don't produce anything, and everybody is taking government handouts.

The service-based thing is an interesting problem. There's a real chicken/egg situation with that. Many people have gone to the service industry because there was no other option.

The gov't handout thing is a whole other problem, that is related, but won't easily be solved, either. I haven't heard Trump address that in any meaningful way other than, "Our winning will make everyone winners."

 

[T.Lex]

Donald Trump is Not Expanding the GOP - POLITICO Magazine

Yeah, they are crossover voters. I think INGO's been mostly right about that. I also think that bodes well for Trump in the general, and makes the Dems very nervous.

But yes, it also calls to question Trumps bona fides as a conservative. That ship has sailed, though. We have what we have.

 

[nate77]

What do you perceive as our disadvantages?

Mentioned this earlier.

Eviromental Regulations
Health and Safety Regulations
Minimum wages
High Corporate Income Tax
Powerful, and influential labor unions
clean, yet very expensive electricity

China, nor Mexico have to contend with those issues, so right off the bat we are at a huge disadvantage.

 

[T.Lex]

Mentioned this earlier.

Eviromental Regulations
Health and Safety Regulations
Minimum wages
High Corporate Income Tax
Powerful, and influential labor unions
clean, yet very expensive electricity

China, nor Mexico have to contend with those issues, so right off the bat we are at a huge disadvantage.

Out of curiosity, how old are you? I only ask because I remember when pollution was a real problem. OSHA-type stuff? You work in manufacturing right? How dangerous do you want your shop to be? Particularly if you want to get rid of workman's comp. I'm not sure what you mean by "high corporate income tax" when all the news talks about how companies can dodge taxes.

Labor unions - well, you got me there. Except workers have the right to organize. How corrupt the enterprise gets after that depends on the people involved.

Not sure how you would change the power grid, but interested in your ideas.

 

[Expat]

Out of curiosity, how old are you? I only ask because I remember when pollution was a real problem. .

Speaking of which, last night on the BBC America news show, they had some woman on there that commented that on some days in California they actually get clouds of smog from China... I don't remember ever hearing that before.

 

[Route 45]

Mentioned this earlier.

Eviromental Regulations
Health and Safety Regulations
Minimum wages
High Corporate Income Tax
Powerful, and influential labor unions
clean, yet very expensive electricity

China, nor Mexico have to contend with those issues, so right off the bat we are at a huge disadvantage.

I'm not exactly a tree hugger, but I do like to be able to breathe outside.

China smog sparks red alerts in 10 cities - BBC News

 

[MisterChester]

Out of curiosity, how old are you? I only ask because I remember when pollution was a real problem. OSHA-type stuff? You work in manufacturing right? How dangerous do you want your shop to be? Particularly if you want to get rid of workman's comp. I'm not sure what you mean by "high corporate income tax" when all the news talks about how companies can dodge taxes.

Labor unions - well, you got me there. Except workers have the right to organize. How corrupt the enterprise gets after that depends on the people involved.

Not sure how you would change the power grid, but interested in your ideas.

I can agree with this. However, I feel that the government should stay out of labor union matters. Right to work legislation, and pro-union legislation, should not exist. Businesses should be free to hire or fire who they want (only caveat is illegal workers, they cannot hire them) and employees should be free to organize without penalty.

 

[nate77]

Exactly my point, how can we compete with countries that don't give a crap about clean air, clean water, worker safety, worker well being, or worker rights in general.

As for manufacturing, I'm out of that game, I've spent the last 11 years in the public utility industry, so I don't worry about my job, but I see the writing on the wall, how can a country only consume, and not produce anything?

 

[JettaKnight]

At this point -
Who is on the ticket that has the best chance of beating Hillary?

I have asked this repeatedly without an answer other than-
-Sit on my hands....
-Just vote for Hillary cause it's the same thing...
-Vote third party because pride...
-Write in other choice just cause...

Somebody give me a choice that will help our situation in this time line please.

SMOD?

 

[nate77]

Not sure how you would change the power grid, but interested in your ideas.

Our coal power industry is being destroyed, thanks to government regulation, and dirt cheap natural gas, but cheap natural gas won't last forever, then watch out.

 

[T.Lex]

Our coal power industry is being destroyed, thanks to government regulation, and dirt cheap natural gas, but cheap natural gas won't last forever, then watch out.

As I understand it - and it has been a long time since I looked into it - we cannot reliably predict "peak coal" or "peak natural gas."

 

[JettaKnight]

Nate, At this point I don't think the answer is undo all of our regulation or build walls, but to guide foreign competitors to have the same level of regulations. This isn't necessarily based on my personal views on EPA, OSHA, etc., but from a pragmatic view of the current situation.

China covered in smog? The answer isn't to return America to the haze of the '70s, but to get China to clean it up. If there's no trade between us, what do we have for leverage?

Mexicans coming over the border and companies going to Mexico for cheap labor? Sending millions of laborers in America back to Mexico will only lower Mexican wages and make it more attractive for companies to go to Mexico. If Mexican crime and corruption goes down and wages go up then America benefits - less companies moving, less illegal aliens.

In a global economy, parity is the best counter to labor migration.

 

[IndyDave1776]

What you're talking about here are tariffs. They are indeed part of international trade. Every country has them, and every country uses them as bargaining chips. You try to get the other country open to your country's goods/services, and they try to do the same. Total game theory.

So, follow this through: our current system of tariffs is in place and no one is really talking about changing it. Basically, it seems to work for most businesses, otherwise they'd push to change it.

You have to consider the question of how the tariffs benefit the businesses involved separately from how they do or do not benefit the United States. If an American company can manufacture it product in Jackoffistan and ship it here with little or no tariff, that increases the profit margin they make on destroying the domestic economy, which they do with reckless abandon with the active assistance of the raft of politicians the businesses own. Hell no there isn't any push to change it, at least not from anyone with any real influence, like owning the politicians negotiating the tariffs and ratifying them.

The service-based thing is an interesting problem. There's a real chicken/egg situation with that. Many people have gone to the service industry because there was no other option.

Nothing interesting about it. It is a direct product of the incestuous relationship between business and government that makes possible the export of American jobs along with rhetoric about a 'service economy' with clear failure to address the fact that service without production is not a sustainable economic model.

Yeah, they are crossover voters. I think INGO's been mostly right about that. I also think that bodes well for Trump in the general, and makes the Dems very nervous.

But yes, it also calls to question Trumps bona fides as a conservative. That ship has sailed, though. We have what we have.

We need to pause and decide how we are defining conservative, remembering that the critical element to defining any alleged conservative is to identify what it is that he or she intends to conserve. Is a conservative someone who wants to perpetuate the Washington environment in which the largest of businesses can buy their own trade agreements and laws to the detriment of the republic? Is a conservative someone who in the popular words of Trump wants to make America great again? Is a conservative someone who wants to live his life in Mayberry? Is a conservative someone who wants to read the Constitution, do what it says and refrain from doing what it doesn't say? Please note that some of the above are mutually exclusive.

Could it be that the pragmatic conservative of this election cycle will be the person who sees that one candidate more so than the other options is offering at least movement in the right direction for the good of the United States, even if he is far from perfect? Could it be that we were offered only one candidate who got any traction who offers a solution down the middle between the insane hard left and the owned GOP establishment who would sell us down the river for their globalist owners? Could it be that such a person would appeal not only to traditional Republicans but also to traditional Democrats who are not part of the hard left? Could it be that this is a wholly imaginary problem as those nearer to center Democrats are also Americans who deserve to be represented and often have goals similar with ours only seeing the alternative as a better vehicle of delivering them in spite of the hard left baggage much as I had seen the GOP as a better vehicle in spite of knowing that it sponsors the destruction of our economy as outlined above? Could it be that we might just see an election in which most Americans can come together for the well-being of the republic rather than the divide brought to a climax by the Kenyan in which half of the population was treated as being completely irrelevant?

Could it be that Trump, flaws and all, may do more to repair the divide in our nation than any other person within my memory with the possible exception of Reagan such as to unite middle America and return the fringe to where it belongs rather than forcing middle America to divide and follow one fringe or the other?

 

[JettaKnight]

Our coal power industry is being destroyed, thanks to government regulation, and dirt cheap natural gas, but cheap natural gas won't last forever, then watch out.

 

[IndyDave1776]

In a global economy, parity is the best counter to labor migration.

That's true, but this global economy as it is exists primarily because of trade agreements in which we dropped our pants and grabbed our ankles. Stopping this will stop much of the problem without further appeasement or capitulation.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Wouldn't it be more appropriate for a guy named Burns to own a coal plant, not nuclear?

 

[JettaKnight]

We need to pause and decide how we are defining conservative, remembering that the critical element to defining any alleged conservative is to identify what it is that he or she intends to conserve. Is a conservative someone who wants to perpetuate the Washington environment in which the largest of businesses can buy their own trade agreements and laws to the detriment of the republic? Is a conservative someone who in the popular words of Trump wants to make America great again? Is a conservative someone who wants to live his life in Mayberry? Is a conservative someone who wants to read the Constitution, do what it says and refrain from doing what it doesn't say? Please note that some of the above are mutually exclusive.

Could it be that the pragmatic conservative of this election cycle will be the person who sees that one candidate more so than the other options is offering at least movement in the right direction for the good of the United States, even if he is far from perfect? Could it be that we were offered only one candidate who got any traction who offers a solution down the middle between the insane hard left and the owned GOP establishment who would sell us down the river for their globalist owners? Could it be that such a person would appeal not only to traditional Republicans but also to traditional Democrats who are not part of the hard left? Could it be that this is a wholly imaginary problem as those nearer to center Democrats are also Americans who deserve to be represented and often have goals similar with ours only seeing the alternative as a better vehicle of delivering them in spite of the hard left baggage much as I had seen the GOP as a better vehicle in spite of knowing that it sponsors the destruction of our economy as outlined above? Could it be that we might just see an election in which most Americans can come together for the well-being of the republic rather than the divide brought to a climax by the Kenyan in which half of the population was treated as being completely irrelevant?

Could it be that Trump, flaws and all, may do more to repair the divide in our nation than any other person within my memory with the possible exception of Reagan such as to unite middle America and return the fringe to where it belongs rather than forcing middle America to divide and follow one fringe or the other?

Other than the line about "the Kenyan" (I'd arge BLM and the Tea Party has done far more to divide us.), you're spot on. In fact, NPR ran piece on the change in the term 'conservative' and how it has changed since the '60s (long before my time) and it origins by Buckley and others.

In my life, I started identifying with the 'Moral Majority' and that brand of conservatism. In College Republicans, I ran into several economic conservatives that tolerated the social conservatives in an effort to maintain the big tent policy of the day. The Tea Party brought us back to the 'small government is best' philosophy. And now, I see the rise of nationalism identified as conservatism - the American economy is most important (overriding all social issues it seems) and it's the federal governments job to make it so.

 

[JettaKnight]

That's true, but this global economy as it is exists primarily because of trade agreements in which we dropped our pants and grabbed our ankles. Stopping this will stop much of the problem without further appeasement or capitulation.

I'll admit global trade, treaties, etc. is far too complicated for me to understand. Heck, when economists, who career is based on studying the impact of this stuff, are divided...

Planet Money did a podcast that featured economists (who were identified by political persuasion) giving their opinions on presidential campaign 'promises'. It's well worth listening; NPR haters, swallow your rage, it's not as bad as the rest of NPR. The full list in print is available. The summary is that most proposals from Bernie and Hillary are bad, coporate tax rate should be lowered, and Trump's idea to expel illegal immigrants is universally hated.

 

[BugI02]

Nate, At this point I don't think the answer is undo all of our regulation or build walls, but to guide foreign competitors to have the same level of regulations. This isn't necessarily based on my personal views on EPA, OSHA, etc., but from a pragmatic view of the current situation.

China covered in smog? The answer isn't to return America to the haze of the '70s, but to get China to clean it up. If there's no trade between us, what do we have for leverage?

Mexicans coming over the border and companies going to Mexico for cheap labor? Sending millions of laborers in America back to Mexico will only lower Mexican wages and make it more attractive for companies to go to Mexico. If Mexican crime and corruption goes down and wages go up then America benefits - less companies moving, less illegal aliens.

In a global economy, parity is the best counter to labor migration.

The board of directors agrees, provided the equilibrium point for parity is your salary declining to third world levels

 

[JettaKnight]

The board of directors agrees, provided the equilibrium point for parity is your salary declining to third world levels

Do you have any data to back this up?