Rush, wouldn’t you much rather see the true price of commodities based entirely on those that consume products and those that produce products?
You jump all over the government for making money off of our oil when they do nothing to produce the oil we use. Then why not condemn the actions of those speculators who make money off of the very same oil without any effort to produce it or take delivery of it and refine it for distribution?
A true market place is one where those that consume products and those that produce products come together decide on a price and then part. If the amount of products demanded by the consumer is more than a producer’s supply then the price should rise slightly or until supply meets demand.
Speculators create an artificial demand that causes price increases. Those that pay the price for this artificial price rise are the consumers. There was a time in this country when this type of activity was frowned upon. Remember the Hunt brothers when they tried to corner the silver market?
I am not in favor of government interference but I am in favor of providing protection for the “general welfare” of its citizens. Protecting the basic needs of its citizens provides a foundation to the health and well being of the American people so that they can perform their daily duties in the continued building of the greatest economic engine the world has ever seen.
Product pricing should be based purely on the cost of production plus profit margin period! If a producer cannot make money at current price levels then he has to adjust his pricing. If the new price is higher than a competitor which would make him un-competitive then he should fold up his tent and go home or make the necessary adjustments to be more competitive.
The speculation in stocks and bonds has no real affect on product or service pricing. So let the speculators confine themselves to the stock and bond markets.
Tom Millican
Monday, July 7, 2008
Wednesday, April 16, 2008
Answer to Walter Williams Article on "Foreign Trade."
Walter Williams;
The United States is the world's largest recipient of foreign direct investment. According the Economic Report of the President, in 2004, foreigners owned $5.5 trillion in U.S. assets and had $2.3 trillion in sales. They produced $515 billion of goods and services, accounting for 5.7 percent of total U.S. private output, and employed 5.1 million workers, or 4.7 percent of the U.S. workforce in 2004. According to the Congressional Research Service, in 2006 alone, foreign investors spent $184 billion investing in U.S. businesses and real estate; the highest amount foreign investors have spent since 2000. My question to Clinton, Obama and the anti-trade lobby is, would Americans be better off if
there were no foreign investment in our country?
Tom Millican;
Walter, come on. That is exactly the kind of trade we should be doing. If a company wants to sell its products in the largest pocketbook in the world then let them come over here build a plant and then sell their goods here in America.
Walter Williams;
According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, between 1996 and 2006, about 15 million jobs were lost and 17 million created each year. That's an annual net creation of 2 million jobs. Roughly 3 percent of the jobs lost were a result of foreign competition. Most were lost because of technology, domestic competition and changes in consumer tastes.
Tom Millican;
Walter the Bureau of Labor Statistics does not look at the kind of job lost and the kind of job gained. The lost jobs were good paying manufacturing jobs while the jobs created were service jobs most likely at Wal-Mart.
Walter Williams;
Some of the gain in jobs is a result of "insourcing". Foreign companies, such as Nissan, Honda, Nokia, and Novartis, set up plants, hire American workers and pay them wages higher than the national average. According to Dartmouth College professor Matthew Slaughter, insourced" jobs paid a salary 32 percent higher than the average U.S. salary. So here's my question to anti-traders: If "outsourcing" is harmful to the U.S., it must also be harmful to European countries and Japan; would you advise them to take their jobs back home?
Tom Millican;
“Outsourcing” is harmful to any country that does it. What you are not saying is that the companies that you mentioned are also doing well in their home countries. Those companies found it more economical to do business nearer the largest number of their customers. Again, the US should welcome any and all companies that want to build plants and create payrolls in the US.
This is going to be hard for your to swallow but the higher wage is because the ex-employees of those companies that went over seas were only able to find lower paying service jobs.
Walter Williams;
Wal-Mart has become the whipping boy for political demagogues, unions and anti-traders. I suggest that they have the wrong target. The correct target is revealed by answering the question: "Why does Wal-Mart exist and prosper?" Wal-Mart exists and prospers because tens of millions of Americans find Wal-Mart to be a suitable source of goods and services. Clinton, Obama, unions and anti-traders should direct their outrage and condemnation at the tens of millions of Americans who shop at Wal-Mart and keep it in business.
Tom Millican;
Suitable source of goods and services, hmmmm. Wal-Mart’s rise is the real barometer of the falling incomes in the US Walter and the consumer is only trying to survive.
Walter Williams;
There's great angst over the loss of manufacturing jobs. The number of U.S. manufacturing jobs has fallen, and it's mainly a result of technological innovation, and it's a worldwide phenomenon. Daniel W. Drezner, professor of political science at the University of Chicago, in "The Outsourcing Bogeyman" (Foreign Affairs, May/June 2004), notes that U.S. manufacturing employment between 1995 and 2002 fell by 11 percent. Globally, manufacturing job loss averaged 11 percent. China lost 15 percent of its manufacturing jobs, 4.5 million man-ufacturing jobs compared with the loss of 3.1 million in the U.S. Job loss is the trend among the top 10 manufacturing countries who produce 75 percent of the world's manufacturing output (the U.S., Japan, Germany, China, Britain, France, Italy, Korea, Canada and Mexico).
But guess what -- globally, manufacturing output rose by 30 percent during the same period. According to research by the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, U.S. manufacturing output increased by 100 percent between 1987 and today. Technological progress and innovation is the primary cause for the decrease in manufacturing jobs. Should we save manufacturing jobs by outlawing labor-saving equipment and technology?
Tom Millican;
Walter, here in North and South Carolina the furniture and textile industries were already modernizing their operations but were still bundled up and sent overseas. If modernization was the answer why didn’t all of those companies just stay here in the US and up date their plants etc. No they wanted the cheaper labor along with more modern plants. When Clinton the more shameful one signed NAFTA and the automobile industry flew south of the boarder it was not because of modernization. It was out and out cheaper labor. So get off this technology kick and tell the whole truth or are you on the payroll of the Council on Foreign Relations?
Walter Williams;
Economist Joseph Schumpeter referred to this process witnessed in market economies as "creative destruction," where technology, innovation and trade destroy some jobs while creating others. While the process works hardships on some people, any attempt to impede the process will make all of us worse off.
Tom Millican;
First off Walter your economist was sympathetic to Karl Marx’s belief that capitalism would collapse and that it would be replaced with socialism. He also used a word “corporatism” which he believed would lead to values unfriendly to Capitalism. He further professed that the climate needed to allow entrepreneurship to survive will not exist in advanced capitalism. If you were honest with your readers you would have told them that Schumpeter also believed that the final conclusion of his theory would be a welfare state!
As your president I will put up trade barriers. Free trade is not free to the family who is out-placed by the loss of their jobs. I will continue to encourage foreign companies to bring their jobs to America and in fact my “Fair Tax” legislation will do just that.
The United States is the world's largest recipient of foreign direct investment. According the Economic Report of the President, in 2004, foreigners owned $5.5 trillion in U.S. assets and had $2.3 trillion in sales. They produced $515 billion of goods and services, accounting for 5.7 percent of total U.S. private output, and employed 5.1 million workers, or 4.7 percent of the U.S. workforce in 2004. According to the Congressional Research Service, in 2006 alone, foreign investors spent $184 billion investing in U.S. businesses and real estate; the highest amount foreign investors have spent since 2000. My question to Clinton, Obama and the anti-trade lobby is, would Americans be better off if
there were no foreign investment in our country?
Tom Millican;
Walter, come on. That is exactly the kind of trade we should be doing. If a company wants to sell its products in the largest pocketbook in the world then let them come over here build a plant and then sell their goods here in America.
Walter Williams;
According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, between 1996 and 2006, about 15 million jobs were lost and 17 million created each year. That's an annual net creation of 2 million jobs. Roughly 3 percent of the jobs lost were a result of foreign competition. Most were lost because of technology, domestic competition and changes in consumer tastes.
Tom Millican;
Walter the Bureau of Labor Statistics does not look at the kind of job lost and the kind of job gained. The lost jobs were good paying manufacturing jobs while the jobs created were service jobs most likely at Wal-Mart.
Walter Williams;
Some of the gain in jobs is a result of "insourcing". Foreign companies, such as Nissan, Honda, Nokia, and Novartis, set up plants, hire American workers and pay them wages higher than the national average. According to Dartmouth College professor Matthew Slaughter, insourced" jobs paid a salary 32 percent higher than the average U.S. salary. So here's my question to anti-traders: If "outsourcing" is harmful to the U.S., it must also be harmful to European countries and Japan; would you advise them to take their jobs back home?
Tom Millican;
“Outsourcing” is harmful to any country that does it. What you are not saying is that the companies that you mentioned are also doing well in their home countries. Those companies found it more economical to do business nearer the largest number of their customers. Again, the US should welcome any and all companies that want to build plants and create payrolls in the US.
This is going to be hard for your to swallow but the higher wage is because the ex-employees of those companies that went over seas were only able to find lower paying service jobs.
Walter Williams;
Wal-Mart has become the whipping boy for political demagogues, unions and anti-traders. I suggest that they have the wrong target. The correct target is revealed by answering the question: "Why does Wal-Mart exist and prosper?" Wal-Mart exists and prospers because tens of millions of Americans find Wal-Mart to be a suitable source of goods and services. Clinton, Obama, unions and anti-traders should direct their outrage and condemnation at the tens of millions of Americans who shop at Wal-Mart and keep it in business.
Tom Millican;
Suitable source of goods and services, hmmmm. Wal-Mart’s rise is the real barometer of the falling incomes in the US Walter and the consumer is only trying to survive.
Walter Williams;
There's great angst over the loss of manufacturing jobs. The number of U.S. manufacturing jobs has fallen, and it's mainly a result of technological innovation, and it's a worldwide phenomenon. Daniel W. Drezner, professor of political science at the University of Chicago, in "The Outsourcing Bogeyman" (Foreign Affairs, May/June 2004), notes that U.S. manufacturing employment between 1995 and 2002 fell by 11 percent. Globally, manufacturing job loss averaged 11 percent. China lost 15 percent of its manufacturing jobs, 4.5 million man-ufacturing jobs compared with the loss of 3.1 million in the U.S. Job loss is the trend among the top 10 manufacturing countries who produce 75 percent of the world's manufacturing output (the U.S., Japan, Germany, China, Britain, France, Italy, Korea, Canada and Mexico).
But guess what -- globally, manufacturing output rose by 30 percent during the same period. According to research by the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, U.S. manufacturing output increased by 100 percent between 1987 and today. Technological progress and innovation is the primary cause for the decrease in manufacturing jobs. Should we save manufacturing jobs by outlawing labor-saving equipment and technology?
Tom Millican;
Walter, here in North and South Carolina the furniture and textile industries were already modernizing their operations but were still bundled up and sent overseas. If modernization was the answer why didn’t all of those companies just stay here in the US and up date their plants etc. No they wanted the cheaper labor along with more modern plants. When Clinton the more shameful one signed NAFTA and the automobile industry flew south of the boarder it was not because of modernization. It was out and out cheaper labor. So get off this technology kick and tell the whole truth or are you on the payroll of the Council on Foreign Relations?
Walter Williams;
Economist Joseph Schumpeter referred to this process witnessed in market economies as "creative destruction," where technology, innovation and trade destroy some jobs while creating others. While the process works hardships on some people, any attempt to impede the process will make all of us worse off.
Tom Millican;
First off Walter your economist was sympathetic to Karl Marx’s belief that capitalism would collapse and that it would be replaced with socialism. He also used a word “corporatism” which he believed would lead to values unfriendly to Capitalism. He further professed that the climate needed to allow entrepreneurship to survive will not exist in advanced capitalism. If you were honest with your readers you would have told them that Schumpeter also believed that the final conclusion of his theory would be a welfare state!
As your president I will put up trade barriers. Free trade is not free to the family who is out-placed by the loss of their jobs. I will continue to encourage foreign companies to bring their jobs to America and in fact my “Fair Tax” legislation will do just that.
Monday, March 24, 2008
Comments from Mr. Clarke
Look I don't have a lot of money to donate to your ideas but just hearing about them gives me some hope. You do not mention the war. What were we to do? Sit back a wait until America was totally destroyed? U.S Cole, Lockerbee, Marine Barracks, 9-11, Twin towers twice (include 9-11), Pearle thrown off a cruise ship, etc, etc,? Iraq used weapons of mass destruction when they invaded Iran, on the Kurds and also invaded Kuwait killing and raping their women, burning their oil wells. This was the ideal place to put a stop to this. I only wished and suggested to the President to use the neutron bomb in Afganistan and then conquer Iraq. 500,000 troops to start. No one to have a weapon other than our troops. Everyone had to stay inside at dark and permission otherwise. Anyway I am just beginning to research you but so far I think you and I are as close as are most GOOD Americans. God be on your side.
Mr. Clarke
Mr. Clarke
New Fair Tax Banner carrier
Rather than start an independent run, I strongly suggest we use our strengths to convince Mr. McCain the FAIR TAX is the way to go. I do not advocate injecting a split to the voting alternative. In our case this only gives advantage to the Democrats.
Mr. Thompson
Mr. Thompson
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
