We ship jobs to China, then buy from them what we used to make. We ship money to the Mid East, etc. for oil to power cars made in other countries instead of Detroit. And all our money allows those countries to build the things we can now only afford to dream about.
And us? We argue over who should get hurt, the poor by cutting funding they need to survive or the wealthy by raising taxes and costing them money they need for their second boat payment.
For Kindle and with free ePub version. Only $9.49 Great reading.
Here is what Gary Shapiro CEO of the Consumer Electronics Association (CEA) said: Dvorak's writing sings with insight and clarity. Whether or not you agree with John's views, he will get you thinking and is never boring. These essays are worth the read!
Subscribe to Main Blog feed here:
Subscribe to Comments too (below):
Bad Behavior has blocked 4719 access attempts in the last 7 days.
And while we’re on the subject of what the US Congress refuses to do about, because the wealthy don’t like it. It refuses to regulate the excesses of the Wall Street, financial, and Medical industries. Especially, Medical. Heaven forbid health care should be as affordable in the US, as it is in most other countries. Or that US doctors can’t reek big profits from part ownership of (or stock in) various testing labs. That’s where they’re making the money these days. Not the cost of drugs.
#16, thanks, I do agree that process had been going on for years, and is still going on today, I read about plants being shut down and jobs being moved to China or Mexico almost every week. These plants are owned, managed, and operated by the very people Republicans say cannot be taxed.
I could go on about the 9 million jobs lost under Bush and the 4 million that continued to be lost under the first few months of the Obama administration that are part of the same process, but those are all part of the result of financial deregulation and gambling on credit default swaps, etc that has still not been acknowledged and laws passed to remedy.
Fiat completed its purchase of Chrysler this past week, ending the bailouts of the auto industry. Yes, the US and Canada lost 1.5 billion in the deal, but that is NOTHING compared to the cost to the economy compared to what would have happened had all 3 US auto makers, their suppliers, and community jobs been allowed to go away like the Republicans wanted to see happen with their opposition to the auto bailouts. We would still be in a depression right now.
And the Republicans STILL will not agree that that those bailouts were a good thing to do. Just amazing how these people actually wish HARM to the US by wanting depression and default to happen.
A balanced budget amendment might be a good thing in some respects, but they do not have the votes to pass it, they don’t have enough votes to override a Presidential veto, so therefore they must move on, compromise in some form in order to not actively cause harm to the country, and try again later when they DO have the votes to do it.
Personally, I do not want to hamstring the Congress and President in case there really is a national emergency, attack, or something that demands the expenditure of massive amounts of money to counteract. Just think what might have happened in WWII had the US not been able to print money and spend more than what it took in in order to fight and win that war. Would the Republicans back then have been sitting there saying NO we cannot build all those planes, we are broke, don’t have the money, and we are NOT going to tax rich people in order to build them! Good grief!!
#31 – your mathematical clarity sounds more like mob rule to me. I knida like freedom and private property myself.
Abimbo–and your fantasy is that you are in the 1%? Its all too apparent. Sad.
VOTE ALL “NO NEW TAXES” POLITICIANS OUT OF OFFICE.
Bobbo, you know you’re right. I take it all back. When some people are starving, we should just kill some fat people to feed the rest. After all, they’re just a minority and we’d be serving the needs of the majority.
VOTE THE SOYLENT GREEN PARTY INTO OFFICE!
Abimbo–your rightwingnut roots are showing. You have the starving part correct, but no one is saying to kill the rich.
That is what is sad. You can’t argue your position coherently==you must warp it out of shape and context to have any position at all.
But putting your analogy on a diet—in a proper society should some starve while others are fat? Please respond to the notion of the fat sharing/giving/forced to give some of their food to the starving. What is your objection to that?
I’m holding my breath.
Go!!!!!!!!!!!!
I love how idiots that scream “Our jobs are going overseas!” can, in the same breath say “We need to tax the rich more!”.
In a world of free trade, jobs will ALWAYS go to where it’s cheapest to operate. If the richest 1% can create a completed product in another country and ship it here cheaper than they can buy just the raw materials here, why would they build them here? What incentives do they have? How could they possibly compete in a free trade world with companies in these cheap labor countries? They couldnt and dont. Free trade sent our production jobs to other countries, and unions are inflating our production costs and accelerating jobs being shipped out.
Rich people are not to blame for us loosing jobs. Free trade makes your work at $20+ an hour compete with someone making 50 cents an hour. Who do you think will win?
Well Derek, how unhinged you are in your preternatural love objects.
By definition if the rich man is making more money by shipping jobs overseas where their inherent natural advantage dominates, why shouldn’t they pay more taxes?
I just don’t understand your clinging to one reality while simultaneously rejecting its consequence?
Can you explain that in words we can all understand? And do you prefer being on the top, or on the bottom? Face up or down?
Ha, ha.
what a stupid post !….
America was built the exact same way….
It made products that it sold worldwide and built itself….
This is a time (actually it started abt 10 years ago) where the world is FLAT…
A post like this just shows how un-informed and current the blogger is.
I used to be a regular at this site but looking at posts like these makes me not want to waste my time on this site anymore.
He should be taxed at the same percentage as everyone else. Remove the loopholes? Sounds fine with me. The more money you make, the more taxes you are paying. Artificially increasing the percentage paid for no other reason than “they have the money” is not equality, is not “blind justice” and does nothing but make the rich pass the bill down to the poor unfortunate souls.
If you want a free trade global economy, then get ready for your quality of life slowly decline over the years until the world settles at the lowest common standard. A rich man that doesn’t invest, reinvest, and spend does not remain rich.
You cannot give a crap about employment, and want to suck trillions out of the free market at the same time. The government produces nothing. All a government can do to regulate and take.
Take the same percentage from the rich as every single other working American, not a single percent more. Remove the loopholes from everyone, and make everyone pay the exact same percentage.
Or just pass the fairtax and stop trying to social engineer everyone.
#38 – “in a proper society should some starve while others are fat? Please respond to the notion of the fat sharing/giving/forced to give some of their food to the starving. What is your objection to that?”
I have every objection to that when its *forced*. It’s laudable and commendable when people freely give to charity. It’s vile and evil when they’re forced to. A society where people are forced to give to others is not a proper society. And it’s certainly not free.
You betray authoritian views. The government should be forced to do things by the people, not theo ther way around.