Recent comments

  • John,
    I buy shoes at Wal Mart and I don't recall seeing sneakers for $100 (mine certainly don’t) and I think they are made in China. However, more generally, I use shoes more as a metaphor for China products in general. It's my understanding that they (generally – on average) come to us for much less than if they were made in the US.

    But, again, we can trade anecdotes to no end to support our subjective theories. But, what I'm saying is to make rational decisions we need systemic analysis of the effects of trade policy on the 75 percentile family income group. It is highly probable that China will react to actions that will negatively affect its economy. Rational decision making entails trying to anticipate those reactions and the consequences.

    We are entering the political campaign season. All the politicians have to run in the second year of near 10% unemployment. They don’t want to be blamed for this mess so both parties are looking for scapegoats. Neither party can blame the other because they are both responsible so they are looking for a scapegoat. I think that’s why the China thing is getting so much press.

    Again, I’m not saying that there is no problem with China. But, I’m looking for more systemic analysis (vs. anecdotes) and policy proposals in terms of affects on the working class.

    Great dialogue on important subject – thanks EP

    Reply to: 2.4 million jobs lost due to China from 2001-2008   14 years 10 months ago
    EPer:
  • by 1.5%.

    Serial! here.

    I forgot how many jobs JP Morgan Chase offshore outsourced after getting TARP funds....

    I know Citigroup did a $2 billion dollar deal to finish offshore outsourcing any tech job that managed to sneak by (who do you virtually move a computer into a room and plug in the cables?)

    Reply to: JP Morgan Chase to gets another reward for their theft   14 years 10 months ago
    EPer:
  • We don't need to manufacture. We don't need high tech. We can run our economy based on flipping houses and selling the rest of the world debt instruments priced in dollars.

    Reply to: 2.4 million jobs lost due to China from 2001-2008   14 years 10 months ago
    EPer:
  • wow

    Why would he stop writing? Although it's true the minute you go against some political orthodoxy you are censored..
    which is yet another reason to stick to facts on this site.

    A conservative is banned because they are against the wars, a conservative is banned because they are not anti-choice, a liberal is banned because they are not for more immigration, a liberal is banned because they speak of deficits and spending....the list goes on and on.

    Roberts is a conservative but one who can see the numbers due to his economic background, so that's really uncool and he should not shut up! Why doesn't he start a blog, run ads and write about whatever he feels like? A lot of people agree with him.

    Reply to: 2.4 million jobs lost due to China from 2001-2008   14 years 10 months ago
    EPer:
  • Sad to learn today that Paul Craig Roberts is bringing an end to his writing career. An authentic peoples' voice for many years, Roberts will be missed. Here's a link to his last article at Counterpunch, its pertinence to this blog topic unmistakable:

    http://www.counterpunch.org/roberts03242010.html

    Reply to: 2.4 million jobs lost due to China from 2001-2008   14 years 10 months ago
  • simply because the profits are not going to the public coffers. But the fact the IRS is enforcing the profits of for profit businesses, well, that seems suspect.

    I'm single payer too and the problem is we have a host of conservatives who don't want anything that is for the public good and makes the entire sector not for profit. Hence, of course the lobbyists won with that kind of false debate going on.

    Reply to: Some Choice Comments on the Health Insurance Legislation   14 years 10 months ago
    EPer:
  • It controls FRBNY. FRBNY, as you know James, holds a special position in the Fed Reserve System besides being a stones throw from Wall Street.

    RebelCapitalist.com - Financial Information for the Rest of Us.

    Reply to: JP Morgan Chase to gets another reward for their theft   14 years 10 months ago
  • ...it's about "the prevalence" -- FRBNY favors NY bankers, and, of course, Jamie Dimon is a NY banker.

    Right....?

    Reply to: JP Morgan Chase to gets another reward for their theft   14 years 10 months ago
  • while Jamie Dimon, CEO of JP Morgan, served on board of directors for FRBNY, FRBNY creates Maiden Lane I to assist JP Morgan with purchase of Bear Stearns. Actually Dimon still serves on the board of FRBNY

    RebelCapitalist.com - Financial Information for the Rest of Us.

    Reply to: JP Morgan Chase to gets another reward for their theft   14 years 10 months ago
  • Pricey shoes have been around for quite a while. My son used to "have to have them" because they were "cool." But I obseved that these $100 sneakers are sold for $25 at outlet stores. Same shoe, same slave labor input, different price. Let's all learn to spend less -- it is not a big adjustment. The idea is to make offshoring less profitable at every opportunity.
    Frank T.

    Reply to: 2.4 million jobs lost due to China from 2001-2008   14 years 10 months ago
    EPer:
  • And speaking of Zombie Finance....

    Reply to: JP Morgan Chase to gets another reward for their theft   14 years 10 months ago
  • And an excellent and enlightening article from the healthcare (Kaiser) industry.

    Most health industry sectors are winners – some bigger than others -- under sweeping health care legislation that will expand coverage to 32 million uninsured Americans over the next decade, analysts say.

    Hospitals, doctors, drug makers and most health insurers will pick up armies of new paying customers. Nursing homes and Medicare's private health plans will face steep government payment cuts, however.

    Somebody is overjoyed, after all.

    Reply to: The Global Agenda: Privatizing the Planet   14 years 10 months ago
  • Oh yeah...there's been an endless amount stating this as correct (that offshoring hasn't actually resulted in overall lower costs).

    That's where that colossal jump in the CEO's -- and senior management's -- salaries and perks jumped up to over 200 percent greater than the workers over the past several decades -- the savings realized by slave labor and cheap labor (presently referred to as labor arbitrage) went solely to the profits of management and corporate owners.

    Classically referred to as the "Nike formula."

    The cost savings are seldom passed on to the citizenry (presently referred to as consumers).

    For every job offshored, so goes a piece of the American GDP.

    Reply to: 2.4 million jobs lost due to China from 2001-2008   14 years 10 months ago
  • I'm working on accurate data, actions as I think of them to write up in another post.

    But note, Tariffs are only coming up in response to China's currency manipulation, not as a routine trade tool. The reason they are coming up is because over 80% of the non-oil trade deficit is with China and we have so much evidence this is killing the U.S. manufacturing sector, economy, jobs. More soon! (and yes I am bothering economists too on digging out some real answers).

    Reply to: 2.4 million jobs lost due to China from 2001-2008   14 years 10 months ago
    EPer:
  • Well, the first thing to notice is you're paying $100 bucks for slave labor made shoes, so obviously the savings did not pass onto the consumer. I don't know about you, but I sure noticed a huge downgrade in quality on clothing, even high end clothing yet the prices remain the same in the mid to high range retailers.

    So, maybe someone but I will try to dig around to see if that claim of offshore outsourcing our jobs, manufacturing base and services really did result in "low prices" as is commonly claimed is even true. I must say it's true in computers though, but that's also due to huge improvements in manufacturing technology.

    Secondly, there are some industries that probably are not coming back because they are just so labor intensive and textiles is commonly cited as one of them. Corporations have the globe to hunt for cheap labor, not just China.

    But another point and this is a problem across the U.S. right now, is Americans need more money in their pocket. Then, buying $100 shoes isn't 10% of your paycheck, it's 2% and that makes things much more affordable. The big reason or one of them for wage repression is inflation, but somehow the have nots need more haves, that's the bottom line here, especially in a consumer driven economy.

    Reply to: 2.4 million jobs lost due to China from 2001-2008   14 years 10 months ago
    EPer:
  • but I can read it now I don't know, maybe Salon doesn't understand permalink?

    Reply to: The Global Agenda: Privatizing the Planet   14 years 10 months ago
    EPer:
  • Redo:

    Or Snivitz?

    .It's OK now.

    Reply to: The Global Agenda: Privatizing the Planet   14 years 10 months ago
  • Or Snivitz/

    Reply to: The Global Agenda: Privatizing the Planet   14 years 10 months ago
  • Jim D,

    Good point, I agree. I think that there are many variables not discussed in this whole China issue. As I indicated in my comment above, I have not seen any discussion about cost of living effects of changes in China’s exchange rate. Further, there are a host of variables that are being ignored. Another, as you note, if jobs leave China that does not necessarily mean they will come to the US. They can go to other countries such as Mexico.

    More generally, there seems to be little if any speculation about what China’s response will be to a tariff and how those possible responses will affect the American working class. If for example, we enact a China tariff, does anyone really believe the Chinese will just say “Oh Darn” and let it go at that! It seems highly probable that they will take some action to defend against negative effects on their economy. What will the consequences of those acts be for the American worker?

    Also, the exchange rate is not having a negative effect on American corporations. As Bonddad reports today they are “flush with cash”. Maybe, we should worry less about the dollar an hour workers in China and more about the mega-rich corporate moguls in the US.

    I’m not saying or implying that the China trade issues are not important. I’m saying that there is little empirical probability theory being applied to China reactions to our actions and the consequences of those actions on the American worker. Again, maybe we should be careful what we wish for – just a thought.

    Reply to: 2.4 million jobs lost due to China from 2001-2008   14 years 10 months ago
    EPer:
  • I have said this on numerous occasions usually with little to no response here but the US cannot compete with labor costs of only a few hundred dollars a month without big tariffs in place.

    We could easily peg the tariffs to an adjustable value on Chinese currency in a way doing what the Chinese refuse to do but what happens when they start selling US dollars off after that and stop buying Tresuries? They have $2.4 trillion in Tresuries now right up there with what Social Security holds.

    Then there is the question (especially politically sensitive) of how many jobs have gone south to Mexico since Nafta. I guess no one wants to talk about that one. Ford makes several car models in Mexico and the labor/benefits package costs them $10 an hour in total. $35 an hour less than costs in Alabama, North Carolina etc. So when do these companies stop doing the politically correct thing and start doing whats best for their bottom line? Well certainly when the tax package they received for moving there runs dry they will close up and off to Mexico.

    Reply to: 2.4 million jobs lost due to China from 2001-2008   14 years 10 months ago
    EPer:

Pages