Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: VOTE►to employ Americans OR to employ Chinese

Posted 1 year ago on Oct. 20, 2012, 7:57 a.m. EST by mideast (506)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement


sensata tells the whole story

46 Comments

46 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 3 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

I dont hear Obama or Romney talking about repealing GATT or NAFTA. Probably because their parties are the ones that implemented it. haha.

And I bet the moderator doesnt ask about TransPacific Agreement.

[-] 1 points by Grimreaper2 (-318) 1 year ago

Actually, isn't OWS supposed to be about global change? Why are you dumping on Chinese workers.

[-] 2 points by mideast (506) 1 year ago

I am not dumping - I want $50,000/year American workers
AND
$50,000/year Chinese workers
don't you ?

[-] 1 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 1 year ago

Actually, there is a way to simultaneously increase the employment of Americans and Chinese. While the US buys most of its consumer goods from China, the Chinese would like to buy many industrial goods from the US as well. These include many items such as advanced machine tools and equipment for developing infrastructure that the Chinese would like to exchange for.

If the US were to redevelop its manufacturing industry, in order to provide these goods, it would have a huge market in China as well as most other developing countries in the world. The US would sell the goods on credit at first, and then, as they are installed in the developing economies, the capital goods would begin to generate wealth which would then be used to pay back the American credit.

A significant number of Americans would have to go abroad to install these items, train personnel how to use them, as well as provide managerial expertise. This approach was originally called the "American way", and was meant to extend the prosperity of America throughout the entire world.

[-] 1 points by Shayneh (-482) 1 year ago

Here is a list of industrial products "made in china". I don't think china needs anything that we have to offer.

Here's the link and if you look at the bottom of the page you will see a link for thousands more products

http://www.made-in-china.com/Industrial-Equipment-Components-Catalog/Industrial-Equipment-Components.html

[-] 1 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 1 year ago

Very interesting, considering that list of industrial products, why do you suppose it is that so many Chinese people still live in poor villages without the benefits of modern infrastructure?

Could it be that while Chinese companies are capable of manufacturing those products, China doesn't have sufficient capital to produce and distribute them in sufficient quantities to those poor villages?

And considering that so many of those Chinese people do indeed live in a state of deprivation, don't you think they'd appreciate receiving some of those goods from America as a way of reducing our trade deficit?

And don't you think that a lot of unemployed Americans would appreciate having good paying jobs making those products for the Chinese?

[-] 0 points by Shayneh (-482) 1 year ago

The issue is not what I think the issue is what the chinese government does. China subsidizes companies in their homeland to keep prices suppressed.

Thousands of farmers are flocking to places where they can work in factories because they make more working there then they do farming.

We can have great paying American jobs if we work towards making this country independent - that includes producing our own goods and with materials made in this country. But that won't happen.

The envionrnmentalists won't allow steel mills to be built without such restrictions that it is impossible to build them. Oil refineries can process the crude oil but again we have yet to see any being built.

So, if we want to prosper we need to make changes so that we can produce products from raw materials otherwise things won't change anytime soon.

I do believe the GDP in china is around 7% because they do a lot of manufacturing and selling to not only the US of A but a lot of other countries.

On the other hand our GDP is at 1.3%. - big difference when you have a country that supresses businesses and doesn't allow for growth in areas that will grow the economy. Electronic plants won't do it -

[-] 1 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 1 year ago

Well, I agree that we should be working to make this country independent, and that the environmentalists generally interfere with this.

In order to reverse this trend, the standard procedure is to pass Glass Steagall, which would bankrupt the anti-American, anti-industrial financial oligarchy, which is the power behind environmentalism.

Then to implement a New Deal style economic recovery program like FDR did.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

The "industrial goods you suggest we should sell to China we should sell to countries closer to home. Mexico, South America at most. Butto go around the world is inefficient. China should focus on providing consumer goods to markets closer to China.

We should be selling consumer goods to them, (but mainly to closer markets) and only if we manufacture them near China. (Japan, South Korea, Australia).

That makes more sense.

[-] 1 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 1 year ago

Considering the trade deficit that we have with China, I think that a strategy to diminish that debt makes a lot of sense.

Not that we shouldn't be selling to South America a well.

[-] 1 points by mideast (506) 1 year ago

willard's SENSATA makes car parts and made hundreds of millions in profits, but if his labor cost might be $20 per hour and the wants to cut that by 90% - willard does what he does- just like The Terminator crapitalist bastard
profits first, America second

[-] 2 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 1 year ago

My suggestion is about economic development, not profit.

There once was a way to do capitalism right, so that it benefited the 99%, and I mean the global 99%. Its time to get back to that way.

[-] 2 points by mideast (506) 1 year ago

yes - capitalism has worked and can work - when it does NOT control democracy.

[-] 1 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 1 year ago

I agree.

[-] 1 points by mideast (506) 1 year ago

OWS working group. Working to disconnect capitalism from democracy:

http://corporationsarenotpeople.webuda.com

[-] -1 points by yobstreet (-575) 1 year ago

True, China no longer has a market for its knock-offs; it's killing their middle class.

[-] 1 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 1 year ago

That's the way the globalist / free traders planned it.

Roosevelt had a completely different idea. He wanted to export industrial goods and managerial skills to help develop China's economy. This would have provided them with an internal market, independent of global crisis.

It would have helped the US to develop a more independent economy as well.

[-] -1 points by yobstreet (-575) 1 year ago

Yea... I'm not sure what Nixon had in mind.

[-] 1 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 1 year ago

Yes, I don't know if it was Nixon who was the problem, or perhaps it was the people who came after him, like Kissinger

[-] -1 points by yobstreet (-575) 1 year ago

Warren Buffet did the same thing and the Left loves him; how do you explain this inconsistency?

[-] 1 points by TimMcGraw (50) 1 year ago

Romney 2012, he'll get us out of this mess that Obama has put us in.

[-] 2 points by stevebol (1268) from Milwaukee, WI 1 year ago

He'll create a few crap jobs and bring back the crew from 2000-2008 to deal with foreign policy. Big deal.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Disastrous deal!

[-] 1 points by NVPHIL (667) 1 year ago

Ha. Romney is the one person (?) who is worse then obama. If you looking for a people's candidate from the right look up gary johnson.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Bush put us in this mess by creating the 'great recession' and congressional repubs have prolonged it by obstructing all dem efforts to create jobs!

Replace pro 1% conservatives w/ pro 99% progressives & protest for change that benefits the 99%.

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Romney has evaded taxes on his $250m nest egg in Swiss bank accts, Shell co's & Cayman Islands.

Pres Obama has 1 100th of the corrupt, money Romney got from outsourcing American jobs.

No comparison! You're reaching.

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 1 year ago

I have yet to see proof that Romney has evaded taxes.

[-] 1 points by Builder (4202) 1 year ago

Just because the rule book has been rigged in favour of the mafiosa, doesn't make it right Betsy. How many pages are there in the loophole, I mean tax code?

[-] 0 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 1 year ago

I didn't make the rules, and neither did Romney. Just because you try to rig your argument in favor of your point of view, doesn't make IT right Builder.

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Then you ain't lookin.

Any one w/ $250m dollars and Cayman isl, Swiss bank accts, shell c's pays 10 - 15% rate has got to be cheating.

That should be enough evidence for court and the should forfeit halfthere money.

And you know what that is still too good for them cause they will still have $125m (obscene) and still live like kings while the rest of us are struggling to pay 35%.

[-] 0 points by Shayneh (-482) 1 year ago

Need to change our "tax laws" don't we?

[-] 2 points by mideast (506) 1 year ago

from politifact:

David S. Miller, a tax attorney with Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP in New York, reviewed public filings by Advent and said it was highly unlikely Obama got any tax advantage from the pension fund’s investment in the Advent partnership.

Atwood went further, saying: "There is no tax advantage to any (pension) plan participant" from that investment.

Miller offered this analysis: "There is no evidence that the fund helped the Illinois pension fund avoid any taxes – in this respect, the Illinois pension fund would have been treated identically had the fund been organized as a domestic (U.S.) partnership.

Atwood emphasized that neither Obama nor any other participant in the retirement system has anything to do with selecting investments for the fund.

[-] 1 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 1 year ago

"Miller concurred with that, and added that Romney legitimately can claim that he has similar distance from foreign investments made through his individual retirement accounts."

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

I don't believe him!

[-] 1 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 1 year ago

Of course you don't.

And since when have YOU paid 35% of your income-ever?

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

I think it is inappropriate for you to fish for my personal info.

Not really relevant.

Romney is a tax evading 1% plutocrat who preys on the rest of us.

Sorry. Thats your guy.

[-] 0 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 1 year ago

No proof of tax evasion. No proof of him preying on anyone. No one in this country pays 35% of their income in taxes unless they make a HUGE fortune NOT on capital gains.

Sorry. That's just your lies.

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

The facts I layed out are clear enough for all to see. We know enough to recognize when a plutocrat id playing the system.

The people are not stupid. And Romney ain't foolin us.

Maybe you but you are a republican partisan so no surprise there.

[-] 0 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 1 year ago

"Facts"? You keep using this word, I do not think it means what you think it means-The Princess Bride.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Romney worth $250m - Fact

Cayman islands shell corps (12 of 'em totalling $12m) - Fact

Swiss bank accts - Fact

Paid 13% taxrate 2010, 9% before he finagled it up to 14% 2011 - Fact

Refuses to disclose any taxes beyond the last 2 years & not all of these 2 years! - Fact

Those are the facts, they indicate tax evasion. They reflect large amount of money he shouldbe paying as his fair share.

He should have half of it taken away as punishment. He would still have $125m & live like a king.

[Removed]

[-] -1 points by yobstreet (-575) 1 year ago

Obama is destined to be the first billionaire president in our history; he has a very bright future working politics from the outside.

[-] 1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

Clinton and D/R signed GATT and NAFTA a while ago.

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

trust progressive/liberal/union goals on trade deals!

[-] 1 points by LetsGetReal (1420) from Grants, NM 1 year ago

And Obama is working on the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade agreement. (AKA NAFTA on steroids).

http://truth-out.org/news/item/10150

[-] 1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

Reality sucks. Sometimes I cant blame people for keeping their heads in the sand.

[-] -1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

This deal has been in the works since 2007? And repubs are screaming to get Obama to finish it. Why has he taken so long to sign it. Maybe a surprise approval after the election?