Globalization has allowed us to buy more cheap crap from Wal-Mart... but at the expense of our middle class. Good for some, bad for others. Globalization brought 500 million workers in low labor cost countries to compete for our 20-30 million middle-class wage jobs. History might reflect on this as the BIGGEST economic blunder every made by any country.
This would pose no problem if the USA continued innovating and producing more high tech goods. But that expectation slowed down with the dot.com bust. History is written by the winners.
Not true. "The money" is not from innovation but rather from manufacturing... all of which (whatever can be) is done in low labor cost countries overseas. We can INNOVATE OUR FRICKIN' BRAINS OUT... and it won't do us one lick of good... unless we manufacture the end products here. That probably requires "protectionist" legislation and business models... hardly a good thing in a time where we're dependent upon the Chinese to fund our debts...
I agree but he's a tad smarter then Bush. My real question was could the US affford this war though. I think it would be a huge stimulant to the econ.
BFD. My Husky is smarter than Bush... Whether or not Obama is "smart" isn't even the issue... he's a parthological narcissist, Hell bent on remodeling the USA into his perception of an ideal Marxist, Socialist, government-centric society and economy. He is as much a threat to America's freedom and future as Hitler was to Germany.
It takes clacy the Republican to change someone else's quote, very FOx news like. Gingrich had a contract out on America and shut down the government - another very Republican tactic - when you can't govern, you shut it down.
No, you are mistaken. Labor cost of durable goods amounts to less than 5% of final price. It is a fallacy that companies go offshore for cheaper labor or that Chinese products are cheaper. The reasons are beyond that. The USA has accepted China dumping low quality products for some (unknown) reasons. This dumping was also accepted by Japan for a while for also unknown reasons. Japan was intensively involved in dumping good and paying the difference in price to accounts of local sellers in Switzerland. The result was destroying many manufacturing sectors in the US. But this happened not because Japanese products were actually cheaper but because they were sold cheap while the government paid the difference to manufactures. I hope you understand now what the game is.
That's TOTAL BULLSHIT, and you know it. If true, ALL goods would be made in the USA because the cost of transporting materials and finished product could not be offset by low labor costs. But in some goods, yes... the ones made in the USA. Not true of other products made overseas. Yes, I understand... have for a long time.. Obvious that you do not. (I thought you had some sense, ibill... seems I was mistaken.)
It is clear that you do not have a lot of experience in international politics and economics. You do not also have understanding of product pricing, something I was involved with for several years. Commodity prices, machinery, transportation and shipping cost are more or less the same regardless of where manufacturing takes place. Royalties on patents do not change according to location. Only labor cost changes. That does not exceed 5% in the best case. Keep in mind that distribution, markup and advertizing is a significant portion of final price. But all these escape your omniscience.... I guess, if you are eating (phagos) shit (skata) (as my Greek friend informed me your name here means) you become omniscient very fast.
The president is the leader and takes final responsibility for the budget. Virtually all of the budgets that Reagan, Bush I, Bush II, and Obama signed into law had massive deficits. The deficits under Clinton were much more reasonable. Spin it however you want.