Announcement

Collapse

Forum Rules - You must read(Updated!)

DISCLAIMER

You agree to NOT use this site or its affiliated sites, services you may have access to as a result of being a member here (subscriber or otherwise), to post items (images, textual material, etc.) that are pornographic in nature, illegal in the United States and/or the country you reside in, support or encourage illegal activities (e.g., terrorism), advertise for your own personal profit, or send unsolicited messages (i.e. SPAM) to members or non-members.

AND

You agree that if any clause or component of this document is found to not be legally binding in a court of law of proper jurisdiction then the remainder of this document shall remain fully binding and in full force.

AND

You agree to NOT hold Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd. (makers of the forum software), uspoliticsonline.com, sites affiliated with uspoliticsonline.com, its administrators, its moderators, others associated with its operation, and its owners liable for any and all of the following (in whole or in part):
Personal insults/attacks by other members.
The content posted by other members, whether directed at you personally or a label/classification you associate with. This includes remarks you consider to be libelous or slanderous in any way.
Any financial or time loss due to your participation here or as a result of something you read at this site, including posts/PMs by other members and feature(s)/software available at the domain uspoliticsonline.com.
The dissemination of any personal information about you as a result of either your negligence (e.g. staying logged into a computer that others have access to) or willingness to post such information on a public and or private forum, private message or chat box. This includes using your real name or other details that could allow other members and/or the general public to determine your true identity. You are prohibited from using your real name on these forums, either as your username or in posts / PMs you write.

FORUM RULES, IN ADDITION TO THE DISCLAIMER

1. These rules apply to all sections of USPOL, including public and private forums, blogs, and visitor messages.

2. You cannot attack and/or personally insult someone. You cannot bait other forum members; this includes referring to posters by derogatory terms. Please, remain courteous and respectful to all forum members at all times. You agree to take responsibility for reporting such posts when you come across them. Please, use the ignore feature if need be. Any member who intentionally and continually posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response, or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion, may be regarded as a troll by staff, and have their account suspended or banned.

3. You cannot harass (sexually or otherwise) other members. This includes malicious, slanderous, or defamatory comments. If you are not sure if something you write is inappropriate or not then don't say it. Err on the side of caution.

4. Copying and Pasting Articles, and Starting New Threads. You cannot simply cut and paste in posts or when starting threads. You MUST provide the identifying information (source, author, date, and URL). You must also offer some original thoughts along with the cut and paste. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts from the article. Excerpts really shouldnt be more then a paragraph or two. Furthermore, if you use images or other copyrighted material in your posts or signature you must have permission of the copyright holder unless you know for a fact that the image is in the public domain. In addition:
a. It must include the identifying information; e.g., where available, the author, the publication, the date, the URL.
b. The member must offer some context, including: How did you hear of this article? What is your opinion? Why is it important to you? Why should it be important to forum readers? The more context you provide, the more you assist others in gauging the excerpted information's significance.
c. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts, not the whole thing or even the majority of the whole thing to encourage people to read the entire article.

A violation of any of the above will result in the deletion or closing of the post or thread and could earn you a warning or suspension. If you have any questions concering any of the above please PM a moderator and we will be happy to clarify.

5. You cannot post the same thing in multiple forums. You must not open similar threads about the same or a similar topic. You cannot spam the board or send unsolicited messages to members via PM, email or any other means.

6. Do not post off-topic. You cannot derail a thread with off topic posts.

7. You cannot shout in posts. This includes posting in all CAPS, bold, lIkE tHiS, and extra large font. Posts should also be one color, although you may use an additional color for highlighting ideas you wish to address.

8. You may not alter quotes in a way that misrepresents what was originally said.

9. Multiple accounts are not allowed. If you are found to have more than one account all accounts will be permanently terminated.

10. You cannot have a user name, avatar, signature, or post images that are deliberately offensive. That includes the display of overly explicit or graphic images that may not be suitable for minors.

11. Signatures can not have more than three lines of text, with a font size no larger than "4", and no more than two font colors. Images in signatures cannot be any larger than 800 pixels wide x 200 pixels tall. Animated images are not allowed.

12. You are prohibited from taking any action to disturb the use of the services by others, distribute material that contains viruses, spyware or any other malicious code or harmful programs. This includes interfering with the working of the network, attempts to gain unauthorized access to a service or other computer systems that are part of the site or any other site, by use of the available services.

13. Discussion of moderation actions in public and/or private forums is not permitted. Moderation actions include warnings, suspensions and the editing or deletion of posts. If a member has a concern about a moderation action, he or she is invited to address it with the board staff via Private Message. This rule exists to protect the privacy of all posters with regards to disciplinary action. The moderator team will never publicly discuss the warnings/suspensions of any posters, and we ask that you return the favor, whether about yourself or another poster. Posting about moderation actions in the public forums constitutes a violation. You are free to discuss a moderation action via Private Message with the moderator involved, but you may not harass or abuse the moderators (as already specified in the forum rules). In practical terms, this means that once a moderator tells you his or her decision is final, no further PMs about that moderation action are permitted. If you have a concern about a moderation action, you are free to appeal to a Forum Administrator via Private Message. You may only discuss moderator activities or discussion of moderation with staff member if you chose to private message and are not under any circumstances allowed to use the PM function to forward or promote moderator discussion in regards to specific forum action, amongst other regular members. Administrators do reserve the right to read said PMs and may do so ; if that results in discovery of messaging between posters of such moderator discussion then it will lead to the same violation being received for discussing said moderator actions on the forum. If you receive a message to the effect of having been given moderator information, please report it to a member of staff. Engaging back in that discussion with the original violator will earn you just as stiff a sanction.

14. Do not ignore moderators or administrators. Do not repost something a moderator or administrator has deleted. You cannot have moderators or administrators on your ignore list.

15. Only post in English. Short passages in foreign languages may be acceptable if its use seems helpful for the ongoing discussion and when there is no indication of a potential violation of the forum rules. Always provide a translation into English in such cases. In case of doubt, the incident will be regarded as a violation, no matter of the actual meaning of the foreign language text.

16. The use of words/comments etc. written by other posters, without approval of the poster in your personal signature is not allowed nor are references, by name, to other posters allowed.

17. Please pay attention to announcements by Forum staff that will be found in the "Welcome! / News & Announcements" forum from time to time.

18. Use of "liar", "lies", "lying", etc. Accusing someone of being a "liar" or similar accusations towards other posters will generally be regarded as implying an insult and therewith as a violation of the forum rules. "I question the validity of your statement because...", "That's not the truth" or "you are wrong about that" are sufficient for any decent discussion if you want to disagree with somebody's assertions.

19. Thread opening restriction for new members. In order to control SPAM, new members must have moderator approval to start their own threads.

20. Thread titles must relate to the discussion within. Do not make misleading titles, or titles such as "Guess what..." or "You'll never believe this...". Members need to be able to identify the general gist of the thread via the title. Profanity in thread titles is not permitted.

21. Forum members are instructed to use forum tools and abilities for their intended purposes and no other. If members identify a forum glitch or weakness of any kind that allows you to see or do something you know you shouldn't, please report it. Being aware of any unintended access to the Forum and failing to take appropriate steps to notify staff of said access issues, will create a presumption of seeking to take advantage of the issue, will result in either account suspension, or banishment.

22. Any link to a site that contains graphic content, must contain a warning describing what a person might reasonably expect to view if they click on said link. No graphic pictures are to be posted on the Forum.

23. Threats or advocations of violence toward a public figure, or member of the Forum, will not be tolerated. Conversation about revolution or the like is not prohibited by this rule; directly calling for violence is, eg It's time to kill every <redacted> that voted for the bill, is not permitted.

24. Accounts with no posts will be deleted after 30 days. Inactive accounts with low post histories may be deleted after one year.

25. Private forums are something offered to members that decide to contribute directly to this site via donations. These donations help immensely in keeping this site up and running. Private forums are designed to allow the contributing member discuss whatever he/she wants to and to have the power to direct that discussion in whatever way he/she chose. They were not designed nor are they intended for simply talking trash about members that don't have access to the forum. While the targeted members cannot see the forum or the comments, it creates a negative atmosphere that really isn't necessary. If you want to totally rip apart ideas, ideologies, political parties, etc. that is fine. We simply ask that you don't use the private forums as a means to attack other members that aren't privy to such comments. It is difficult enough to have a political discussion forum because the discussion of politics is inherently heated as people are so passionate about their beliefs...the ones that take the time to come to such a site in the first place at least. The idea of private forums is so people of similar political persuasions can discuss whatever they want without fear of being attacked. Nonetheless, we hope that a certain level of maturity would foster itself within such an arena and not simply lend itself to a bashing forum.

Private Forums are governed by all of the above Forum rules. In addition:
  • Private forums that essentially become abandoned homes will be subject to deletion, donation or reorganization. Just like elsewhere in life, clubs sometimes lose their vitality and purpose for a myriad of reasons. If it becomes clear that a private forum has clearly lost its vitality and nobody is going to really use it anymore, owners are advised to consider whether to reuse the forum for something new and productive rather than let them linger or notify the Administration that the forum should be rearranged for other purposes, closed, merged with other compatible private forums, donated to others for new purposes, etc. Do not be concerned that your forum must be a membership and post count race with others to avoid falling under this policy; the question is whether your forum has actual vitality instead of being 'brain dead.'
  • Additionally, private forums may only be owned by subscribed members in the Platinum or Diamond categories.
  • Should the owner of a private forum be banned, quit USPOL or otherwise abandon the forum the PF will be transferred to another owner or closed.
  • Propriety of private forums. Administration staff will determine the desirability of a proposed private forum and enact any conditions upon it to ensure its purpose is productive.
  • Any and all instances of sharing accounts by allowing someone else to log in under their own account so they can see into private forums for which they are otherwise not permitted to access, will be deemed violation of the double account rule and all caught doing so will be permanently banned.
  • Relaying private forum posts and information to other posters who are not members of the particular private forum for any negative or destructive purpose (eg mean-spirited gossip, fueling interpersonal disputes, etc), is not permitted, and will constitute a violation of the Forum rules.
  • For purposes of monitoring USPOL Terms of Service Administrative staff (not Moderators) will have access to Private Forums.
  • All Private Forums must have at least one active Administrator as a member for purposes of handling issues which cannot be addressed through moderation permissions.
  • Discussion of moderation activities is prohibited on the open site and is likewise prohibited in Private Forums.

26. The administrators and moderators reserve the right to edit and/or delete a post,and/or close a thread, and/or delete a thread at any time if of the opinion that the post is too obscene, inappropriate, or the discussion has run its course.

27. 'Back seat moderating' is not allowed. If you take issue with another poster's contribution to the forum, you're welcome to report any posts you think are out of line, but you should not bring it up publicly within the forum.

28. Images in posts (whether embedded or hot linked) must be reasonable in size. 800x800 should be considered a good rule of thumb. Excessively large images make it difficult for users on mobile devices to load pages. If necessary please simply link to very large images using the URL tags. In addition, the following images are not permitted (including, but not limited to pages with images or videos containing):
  • Strategically covered nudity
  • Sheer or see-through clothing
  • Lewd or provocative poses
  • Close-ups of breasts, buttocks, or crotches

29. Any solicitation or communication involving sports betting / gambling / online casinos / bookies and or internet based card or slot machine systems or sites will lead to all said content being physically removed from the site and server, and will lead to any and or all parties involved being permanently removed and banned from the site to the farthest extent possible. This includes any links to any form of bookmaker, casino, any type of game or match or event where money transfers on the outcome or link of any sort to wire act violations and or anything in violation of either the Internet Gambling Regulation, Consumer Protection, and Enforcement Act, Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006, or the Federal wire Act. This applies not only to the open forum but all and or any chat rooms, articles, private messages and or private forums. All content that violates this rule will be deleted, without notice.

CONSEQUENCES

Failure to comply with any of the forum rules may result in your posts being edited or deleted and/or your account being temporarily or permanently banned from the forums. U.S. Politics Online uses a warning system that generates an automated Private Message to members when they are in violation of Forum rules. The decision to issue a warning is left to the discretion of the moderator or administrator handling the violation. If a member does not agree with an action taken by a moderator, they can appeal to an administrator after seeking clarification from the moderator who issued the warning/infraction and appealing to them in the first instance. Members MAY NOT harass a moderator or administrator by sending excessive PMs when they are discussing an appeal.

Violations are assigned a point value. Points are valid for 30 days. When a members earns 10 points, their account will be automatically suspended: five (5) days for a first suspension; ten (10) days for a second suspension; and twenty (20) days for a third suspension. If a member incurs an additional 10 points after having served three periods of suspension, then they will be permanently banned from the Forum.

Point values are as follows:
Zero (0) points Warning
Two (2) points - Minor infraction / Non post infraction (minor) / Off topic posts / spamming
Four (4) points - Academic dishonesty / Baiting / Discussing moderator or administrator actions / Implying an insult / Minor insults / Moderate infraction / Non-post infraction (moderate) / Thread dumping
Six (6) points - Direct insult at another member / major infraction / Non-post infraction (major)
Ten (10) points - Act of criminality, or advocating thereof

The administrators and moderators also bear the right to issue warnings, temporarily suspend or ban posters for continued trolling or other serious misconduct (eg. professional spamming) even if the poster has not yet reached the maximum warning points or suspensions level. Other options if the above consequences do not seem adequate include placing the member in a moderation queue, which means all posts will have to be approved before they are posted to the board.

PRIVACY POLICY

All information obtained by the end user via the registration process is for internal purposes only and will not be sold to or shared with any third parties. However, if the end user participates in illegal activities and a court of proper jurisdiction orders U.S. Politics Online to release certain information about said user then we will act according to the law. Furthermore, no information will be released on threat of a lawsuit, attempted or actual intimidation, or due to any other reason except as notated in the first sentence of this paragraph. Nonetheless, keep in mind that the information we do have is very limited and generally only consists of the IP address a member uses.

SUBSCRIPTIONS

U.S. Politics Online offers several subscription plans to help cover the operational costs of the site. As a thank you for your donation, you will receive special added benefits meant to enhance your U.S. Politics Online experience. Plans vary in price, starting at only $0.05/day, and benefits vary with the price. Benefits include ability to go straight to new posts, to search the forum, larger avatar, private forums, invisible mode, photo gallery, email, web hosting, and no advertisement banners. Please, click here for more details.
See more
See less

The Regressive Reality Show

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • The Regressive Reality Show

    President-Elect Trump embarks on his Victory Tour today, starting in Indiana, where he is already claiming success. He claims to have brokered a deal with Carrier to keep a 1000 or so jobs in Indiana, which were previously slate to be moved to Mexico. How did he do it? His Vice President-Elect Mike Pence cut them a check...

    Trumps deal to keep Carrier jobs in Indiana includes $7 million in state subsidies

    INDIANAPOLIS Carrier would receive a $7 million package of incentives to keep its factory here from moving to Mexico, the company said Thursday, under a deal negotiated with the state after an unprecedented intervention by President-elect Donald Trump that could reshape the relationship between the White House and private enterprise.

    Carrier said the package would extend over several years and was contingent on employment, job retention and capital investment. It also pledged to invest $16 million in the factory over the next two years. The agreement would affect about 1,000 of the factory's workers, though the company is moving forward with plans to shift production to Mexico from another Indiana facility that employs about 700 people.

    Trump toured the factory and was slated to deliver remarks here Thursday afternoon before kicking off his "Thank You" tour in Ohio later in the day. Carrier has been a staple of the local business community since the 1950s, and the 550,000-square-foot plant processes 100 million pounds of raw steel each year.

    Our union at every level, including our local union leadership, fought to keep that plant open, said Leo Gerard, international president of the United Steelworkers, which represents the factory's workers.

    Gerard said in an interview Wednesday that the union was still waiting to hear details of the agreement. Though it did not endorse Trump, Gerard said the union supports crucial aspects of the president-elects agenda, including preservation of manufacturing jobs, scrapping free trade deals and spending on infrastructure.

    If this step is any indication of whats to come, we look forward to working with him, Gerard said.
    Now, a month ago, that would have been called crony capitalism or corporate welfare by those on both sides of the political spectrum, and if it continues it will probably be called Trumponomics going forward. What it really represents is the power of perception and the media. More than the dollars being passed under the table, I think Carrier decided that the optics, and the bully pulpit that Trump now wields, would do far more harm than the increased labor cost.

    In all fairness, the bully pulpit is the only lever the President-Elect wields right now. When he's sworn in, he will have real power to do it the right way, by slashing the tax and regulatory structure, and investing in technologies and infrastructure that will give America the edge it should over the third world. Companies wouldn't need public handouts to compete if the government did it's job and then got out of everyone's way. The role of government is not to redistribute money from the tax payers of Indiana to the imperiled Carrier employee demographic. Time will tell if he makes the shift from style to substance on this matter.

    What is really interesting is the reaction from the marxists regressives, apparently led by non other than Bernie himself. In true regressive form, his only concern is the precious, precious tax revenue that he would rather use to buy votes...

    Bernie Sanders: Donald Trump Has Endangered U.S. Jobs With Carrier Deal

    WASHINGTON ― Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) is not impressed by President-elect Donald Trumps deal with Carrier Corp. to keep roughly 1,000 jobs at its Indiana plant instead of sending them to Mexico as planned.

    The former Democratic presidential candidate ripped the apparent terms of the deal in an op-ed for The Washington Post.

    Trump has endangered the jobs of workers who were previously safe in the United States, Sanders wrote. Why? Because he has signaled to every corporation in America that they can threaten to offshore jobs in exchange for business-friendly tax benefits and incentives.
    Like all "good" regressives, who have no trouble threatening employers with an endless stream of taxes and regulations, or fines and legal action, are apparently oblivious to how the bottom line those "greedy capitalists" so jealously guard does not just buy them a third home on Lake Champlain. That's just the small percentage they skim off the top for their trouble. No, corporate profits and the taxes collected from the rich are really the only thing keeping the entitlement ponzi scheme afloat. Hillary knew it, and could not hide it. Bernie is still feeling the bern. Trump was, perhaps rightly, criticized for being little more than a reality show host. But it is clear that the marxist Regressives are running the "reality" show. With the continued popularity of Comrade Sanders and the reelection of Nancy Pelosi as House Permanent Minority Leader, it's clear that they have doubled down on biting the hand that feeds them. At this rate, they will soon find themselves as meaningless as their pawn Jill Stein. The GOP has a golden opportunity here to get the public sector out of the private sectors way, so that soon the country won't even need a fluffy haired ego mass to fight it's battles. Feel the burn.jpg

  • #2
    Originally posted by Commodore View Post
    ...Time will tell if he makes the shift from style to substance on this matter....
    On that note, I stumbled across the following stern warning to the diehard Trumpkins...

    Mr. Trump:

    Like a despot drunk and delirious with power, you bellowed recently that [c]ompanies are not going to leave the U.S. anymore without consequences.

    Even if we ignore much that oughtnt be ignored such as your unconstitutional promise to use the office of the president of the executive (note: not legislative) branch of the national government to dictate how private companies conduct their business you reveal appalling economic ignorance.

    How do you anticipate business executives will respond to your bullying threats? Are you truly so stupid as not to understand that among the results of your intimidation is that fewer firms will open in America? That fewer businesses here will expand? That those that do open or expand will use a higher ratio of capital to labor because they fear that the greater the number of workers they employ the more likely they are to be victimized by your arbitrary diktats? That no matter how much you cut the monetary taxes they pay, the uncertainty and absurdity of your promised autocratic rule drastically raises firms costs of starting and growing on U.S. soil? And that each of these inevitable responses to your imperious fulminations will be slower job and wage growth for Americans?

    Sincerely,
    Donald J. Boudreaux
    Trump would do well to focus on the fundamental levers granted him under the Constitution, and let the chips fall where they may.

    ?


    • #3
      Originally posted by Commodore View Post

      On that note, I stumbled across the following stern warning to the diehard Trumpkins...



      Trump would do well to focus on the fundamental levers granted him under the Constitution, and let the chips fall where they may.
      Well, Trump certainly should have used a different tool in order to get carrier to keep the jobs here instead of giving special tax breaks, although I have nothing against tax breaks in exchange for keeping jobs here. But what he should have done is just to let them know that they would be tariffed to make up the difference in labor costs, 3 bucks in mexico compared to 20 bucks here. So that someone else could start a new business here, and be competitive for the same products, air conditioners, heat pumps, etc. Which would take away the reason for going offshore in the first place. And it would be constitutional for we started off from day one with tariffs to protect our own nation's economy. Only when the right wing loons got some power did we change what the founders set up.

      And of course particular businesses will not like it, but America does not exist only to use its markets for your slave labor goods to max out your profits. In fact, our people need to be protected from the crap that the GOP started, which visibly hurt all working people in some way or the other. That is one of the reason the founders used labor equalizing tariffs. For the American people and domestic business was more important than a few maxing out their own profits. This scheme, this ruse, is not in the national interests of America, nor her people. It will keep creating insolvable problems until it is reversed. We, as a nation simply cannot afford over the long term the costs of maxing out elite profits, and using that idea to structure the economic playing field. For the costs to the non elites are just too great, creating problems that costs tax money, hurting us fiscally. There are a plethora of costs involved, because insanity will create costs, problems.

      I hope trump goes hard nosed on keeping business here, for it is his job to do that. He will get little cooperation from either party, since it took both of them to change our economy in the first place. Moving away from what the founders set up to protect America economically, was not at all wise. Business interests trumped national interests, where it had never done that to such a degree in the past. It would have been unthinkable in the past. It would have been suicide. Yet some folks today act as if slave labor is new. That if you do not use it, then our entire economy would be in really bad shape, as if trade HAS to be the bread and butter of our economy. It is utter nonsense to even entertain such a thought.


      I may not agree with how trump keeps business here, but at least unlike every president since Reagan, he seems to be intent on working to keep them here. Highly unusual, and it shows that we elected someone who would have acted like pre Reagan presidents. It shows what treasonous presidents we have had up until now. Presidents who put the profits of the elites over America. Allowing a group of sociopathic greedy bastards crap all over what our more intelligent founders set up to create and sustain, a healthy, strong nation.

      We didn't create the America who won ww2 by offshoring American industry free trade. What the founders put into place in their superior intelligence, and loyalty to America, created the America that the GOP began to dismantle, piece by piece, while extolling the wisdom of the founders in other areas.

      ?


      • #4
        Originally posted by Blue Doggy View Post
        Well, Trump certainly should have used a different tool in order to get carrier to keep the jobs here instead of giving special tax breaks, although I have nothing against tax breaks in exchange for keeping jobs here. But what he should have done is just to let them know that they would be tariffed to make up the difference in labor costs, 3 bucks in mexico compared to 20 bucks here. So that someone else could start a new business here, and be competitive for the same products, air conditioners, heat pumps, etc. Which would take away the reason for going offshore in the first place. And it would be constitutional for we started off from day one with tariffs to protect our own nation's economy. Only when the right wing loons got some power did we change what the founders set up.
        Except what you and Trump describe would, as indicated, appear to be unconstitutional...

        Originally posted by US Constitution, Article 1, Section 8
        The Congress shall have the power

        1. To lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States:...
        Tariffs on individual companies would not only be unconstitutional, but are only going to hurt the consumer, invite other countries to respond in kind, and guarantee an invasion of lobbyists to Washington. Tariffs, historically, have always been across entire industries.

        If you were to get everyone to agree on a uniform level to tax everyone's imports and that revenue where to be set aside to innovate domestic producers, then it might actually do some good, and not just be a case of cutting off ones nose to spite their face.

        ?


        • #5
          Trump could do far more for the US workers by getting existing protectionist policies out of the way than by adding to them...

          Oreo Is Leaving for Mexico and Trumpism Is to Blame

          Presidential front-runner Donald Trump vows that he will "never eat another Oreo again" to protest the transfer of 600 cookie-making jobs from Chicago to Mexico. And Trump is 100% correct when he condemns the factorys exodus: "Its unfair to us."

          But the villains who have destroyed the jobs of American workers are Congress and the Department of Agriculture, not Nabisco and free trade. It is the very protectionist policies The Donald advocates to help American industry "win" again that caused the Oreo job losses he decries.

          Federal policy has long kept the U.S. price of sugar at double or triple that found in the world market. Food manufacturers such as Nabisco are hostage to a Byzantine combination of price supports and arbitrary import restrictions that make producing candy and other sweets far more expensive here than in Canada or Mexico.

          Federal sugar policy costs consumers $3 billion a year in a failed effort to save the jobs of sugar growers even as the number of such farmers has declined by almost 50% in recent decades.

          That's bad enough, but sugar policy is one of Uncle Sams most successful job destroyers. The Commerce Department estimated a decade ago that "for each one sugar growing and harvesting job saved through high U.S. sugar prices, nearly three confectionery manufacturing jobs are lost." Since 1997, sugar policy has zapped more than 120,000 jobs in food manufacturing, according to a study by Agralytica, an economic consulting firm. More than 10 jobs have been lost in manufacturing for every remaining sugar grower in the United States.

          Our Trumpian sugar policy has been an obvious failure since the 1980s. Fifteen years ago, there was a brief uproar when Brach's Confections announced it would close its Chicago factory and move much of the production to Mexico. In 2002, Life Savers closed its Michigan factory and moved to Canada. Hershey's has also closed U.S. facilities and moved jobs abroad. Sugar prices were the culprit in each case.

          Why would the feds continue a protection policy crushing American manufacturing?Campaign contributions. The sugar lobby showers Congress with money, including almost $50 million in campaign contributions and lobbying between 2008 and 2013 alone. In return, congressmen have licensed sugar growers to pilfer consumers at grocery checkouts and rob hardworking Americans of their jobs.

          Our failed sugar policy illustrates why politicians cannot make trade more fair by making it less free. The economic arguments offered for sugar protectionism, like most trade barriers, are merely camouflage for political plunder. Every time Trump tries to save an American job through protectionism, he will make some Americans poorer at the same time that he puts even more jobs at risk.
          It's ok Donald, I'll have your Oreo's.

          ?


          • #6
            It's said that those who do not know their history are doomed to repeat it. Of course, it is usually said in the context of terrible ideas being repeated, leading to repeated terrible results. But good ideas, repeated, lead to repeated good results. This is not one of those ideas...

            The Catastrophic Results of the Smoot-Hawley Tariff of 1929-30

            In the year 1929, as America slides into recession, a Republican senator, avowed patriot, Mormon prophet and businessman named Reed Smoot decides that he wants to do something about saving the countrys jobs.

            They are being lost, insists Senator Smoot, because too many countries are selling too many goods into the United States and undermining the lives of honest, hard-working, ordinary folk.

            Fortunately, the senator has a solution. Higher tariffs and duties, he promises, will protect those jobs. And as chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, hes in a position to do something about it.
            ...
            Given Donald Trumps campaign speeches, Im guessing he has little knowledge of Smoot-Hawley. Yet his campaign promises and his actions since he became President-elect position him very much as Senator Smoots heir.

            Even before hes got his feet under the desk in the Oval Office, he has killed off the Trans-Pacific Partnership (a terrible deal) that had just been agreed by 12 Pacific Rim countries, and has for good measure condemned the 22-year-old North American Free Trade Agreement with Canada, US and Mexico, on the grounds that its costing American jobs.

            In short, the 45th president sounds very much like a protectionist an impression underlined a few days ago when he warned that if any US firms moved production abroad then tried to sell those products back home, hed slap on a 35 per cent tariff. (Never mind, as many an expert has pointed out, that this could run into all kinds of problems under international law, not to mention Americas own constitution.)
            ...
            Apart from Republican politicians, who spotted votes in protectionism, few who knew anything about the subject were enthusiastic about Smoots ideas.

            In fact, more than 1,000 American economists wrote to President Herbert Hoover, pleading with him not to sign the bill into existence. Despite this, and despite his own misgivings hed once damned the bill as vicious, extortionate and obnoxious Hoover did.

            The results were almost immediate. As global trade dried up, much of the worlds shipping fleet was mothballed and orders for new ships cancelled. Other major industries were affected steel production, fishing, farming and manufacturing of all kinds.

            And predictably, Americas trading partners reacted in kind.

            An outraged Canada slammed tariffs on goods that accounted for 30 per cent of American exports. France, Germany and the British Empire followed suit, either turning to alternative markets or developing substitute manufacturing that would replace goods previously acquired from America or elsewhere, since many other countries were erecting wall-of-death tariffs.

            It would take decades for some of these policies to be unwound.

            Although historical economists still differ about the extent of the damage caused by Smoot-Hawley, nobody doubts that it dealt a serious blow to the global economy at a vulnerable time or that it deepened and lengthened the Depression, both inside and outside the United States.

            The incoming president, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, said Smoot-Hawley compelled the world to build tariff fences so high that world trade is decreasing to vanishing point.

            ?


            • #7
              Originally posted by Commodore View Post
              Trump could do far more for the US workers by getting existing protectionist policies out of the way than by adding to them...

              Oreo Is Leaving for Mexico and Trumpism Is to Blame



              It's ok Donald, I'll have your Oreo's.
              Part of the reason sugar is high is because it yields better in making alcohol, that is put into our gas. So, to keep the corporations here who grow corn, instead of sugar, happy, we increase the price of imported sugar. Business buys policy. We have lots of that.

              ?


              • #8
                Originally posted by Commodore View Post
                It's said that those who do not know their history are doomed to repeat it. Of course, it is usually said in the context of terrible ideas being repeated, leading to repeated terrible results. But good ideas, repeated, lead to repeated good results. This is not one of those ideas...

                The Catastrophic Results of the Smoot-Hawley Tariff of 1929-30
                Yes, excessive tariffs that supercede the difference in labor costs can shut off trade. But hollowing out your nation by offshoring is even more damaging, placing you own work force in direct completion with cents on the dollar labor costs, is even more damaging. So you have to put those high tariffs you use to support offshoring our economic job creation engine, in CONTEXT, or you might end up believing offshoring our economy, then allowing that parasite to suck the wealth from America is a WISE and GOOD thing.

                IF tariffs and none tariff trade barriers did not work, to make a nation healthier, her people more prosperous, NO ONE would use them. We would have hollowed out America long ago. The only reason we moved away from what the founders put into place, is that the founders saw America as more important than maxing out elite profits. Remember, one reason for our revolt against king George was because of England's refusal to let us make out own cotton textiles and clothing. We sold them our cotton, but it was illegal for us to turn raw resources into clothing. We had to buy it from someone else. Not that much different from what is happening today. Just replace England with a MNC, a Virtual State. So, the elites became more important than American interests. And their new/old scheme became our economic model, which was 180 from what our founders put into place. But they were concerned about the nation called the USA. And were acting in that interest. Your boys no longer do. That is all that has changed. This is un-American behavior and you are in the middle of it.

                ?


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Blue Doggy View Post
                  Yes, excessive tariffs that supercede the difference in labor costs can shut off trade. But hollowing out your nation by offshoring is even more damaging, placing you own work force in direct completion with cents on the dollar labor costs, is even more damaging. So you have to put those high tariffs you use to support offshoring our economic job creation engine, in CONTEXT, or you might end up believing offshoring our economy, then allowing that parasite to suck the wealth from America is a WISE and GOOD thing.

                  IF tariffs and none tariff trade barriers did not work, to make a nation healthier, her people more prosperous, NO ONE would use them. We would have hollowed out America long ago. The only reason we moved away from what the founders put into place, is that the founders saw America as more important than maxing out elite profits. Remember, one reason for our revolt against king George was because of England's refusal to let us make out own cotton textiles and clothing. We sold them our cotton, but it was illegal for us to turn raw resources into clothing. We had to buy it from someone else. Not that much different from what is happening today. Just replace England with a MNC, a Virtual State. So, the elites became more important than American interests. And their new/old scheme became our economic model, which was 180 from what our founders put into place. But they were concerned about the nation called the USA. And were acting in that interest. Your boys no longer do. That is all that has changed. This is un-American behavior and you are in the middle of it.
                  You've replaced England with Washington DC. The only surefire way to hollow out your nation is to obstinately refuse to compete.

                  ?


                  • #10
                    Who is Protectionism Protecting Anyway?

                    Take heed that we buy no more from strangers than we sell them, for so we impoverish ourselves and enrich them. Although this sounds vaguely like Donald Trump talking about his trade policy, it was actually written by Sir Thomas Smith in 16th century England. Smith advocated a trade policy that enriched the merchant class and hurt the common people of England. Trumps similar trade policy would have the same consequences for the American consumer.

                    On his website, Trump lambasts decades of trade policies that he says have caused companies to move jobs and resources overseas to the detriment of the American people. According to Trump, free trade is beneficial only as long as it is fair trade. He has vowed to scrap the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) and renegotiate NAFTA on his first day in office. In a campaign speech in Pennsylvania, Trump rejected the policies of globalization that the Obama administration pursued. He claimed that these policies have wiped out the middle class. Instead, he promoted a policy of Americanism that relied on boosting manufacturing and providing it with a shield. He pointed out that early presidents recognized the importance of strong manufacturing and praised their insistence on protective policies. Trump promised to put America first again.

                    Old World Economics

                    These sentiments are anything but new. They have already been tried by the governments of England and France. This philosophy of trade, called mercantilism, dominated these countries between the 16th and 18th Centuries. Mercantilism aims to make a country rich by selling more goods to other countries than it buys from them. Like Trump, mercantilist nations emphasize the manufacturing of finished goods that can be exported around the world. Also, like Trump, these countries try to protect their manufacturers by enacting high tariffs, forcing people to use domestic resources rather than getting them from other countries.

                    Mercantilism was moderately successful for the French and English royalty and merchant classes, but a complete disaster for the millions of common men and women in these countries. The vast majority lived in abject poverty compared to todays standards. This is because mercantilism seeks to protect industry at the expense of the consumer. Adam Smith viewed the protectionist system as a conspiracy between manufacturers and merchants against consumers.

                    Modern economists Robert Ekelund and Robert Tollison called mercantilist society a rent-seeking society. In a world where Trump is offering deals to companies like Carrier and proposing tariffs to protect industry leaders, similar rent-seeking behavior will become more common. In that scenario companies like Apple would stop producing more innovative iPhones for their customers. Instead, they would pander to politicians and try to win additional free money. Products would not get better and more affordable, thereby hurting the middle class family trying to stretch their dollar.

                    Tariffs, like those Trump is proposing, make everyday consumer products unnecessarily more expensive. Economist Matt Ridley reported that trade barriers between the United Kingdom and the United States make every American pair of jeans 12 percent more expensive for British fashion lovers. And beer lovers in the United States like me must pay 157 percent more for every pint of British beer. These laws make it harder for everyday Americans to get the products that they want.

                    Instead of offering protections to large corporations, government should work to make trade as free as possible. Adam Smith and David Ricardo showed how free trade helps the average consumer. It encourages countries to specialize in making only those goods which they can produce most efficiently at the lowest cost, much like people specialize in being a doctor, a plumber, or a taxi driver. Allowing countries to specialize in a few goods and import the other things they need offers consumers more numerous, less expensive choices.

                    While Trump says his protectionist policies will help the average family and make America great again, these policies benefit large corporations the most. They encourage companies to seek political favors instead of making better products driven by consumer demand. They also limit choices and impose higher prices on families whose budgets are already tight. These policies were tried centuries ago and found lacking. Trump should focus on what works: more freedom.

                    ?


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Commodore View Post
                      Well, I tend to just look at reality, at what economic and trade IDEAS yield. If you think the current open borders free trade, economy offshoring, globalization can expand and sustain a middle class like our old model did, you are totally ignoring what has happened to the working and middle class, and the greater income disparity that it has created. How you guys can stare in the face of this and yet still hold to your opinions and beliefs is astounding.

                      The difference here is that you and the democrats are not thinking like our founders thought, about America, business, and her people. They actually thought they should put the health and strength of this nation over the interests of people just wanting to enrich themselves. They knew how important it was to have a manufacturing base that would supply what we needed, which also would employ the people. They knew there was an inherit weakness in relying upon a foreign source for the consumer goods americans need and buy. And so they had to protect American business from foreign business who had cheaper labor. But they were also protecting American workers from slave labor overseas. Afterall it is in the best interests of America to have jobs for her people. But with you guys, you see no American interest. You see only business interests, which trump American interests. And so you guys need to stop using the founders as your example when it comes to our constitution, for you will not accept what else they did in their wisdom. Tariffs. They were smarter than the neoliberals of today.

                      The way you and both parties are thinking about trade is an incoherent aberration. It goes against rationality and reason, IF, an economic model should benefit the greatest number of americans, and provide them with jobs to keep them off of welfare. What your kind of thinking has created has turned America into the host of a parasite, and clearly not in the interest of America. And this madness now illustrates itself in that we are gonna build our fighter aircraft in India!! We are being ruled over by inbred idiots, or a big corporation wanting to max out profits, which means the elites max out their profits. Within a generation we will not have an American who can engineer and build an essential military fighter. For you lose engineers when there are no jobs here for them.
                      Last edited by Blue Doggy; 12-10-2016, 08:36 PM.

                      ?


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Blue Doggy View Post
                        Well, I tend to just look at reality, at what economic and trade IDEAS yield.
                        Well, if you did, you'd find that the obstinate refusal to compete is what has yielded whatever challenges blue collar the worker faces.

                        Originally posted by Blue Doggy View Post
                        And this madness now illustrates itself in that we are gonna build our fighter aircraft in India!!
                        No. We are not. The Navy and Air Force are not going to order any more F-16's or F-18's, as both are being replaced because they are obsolete. Any further air frames of those types will be going to overseas markets.

                        ?


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Commodore View Post

                          Well, if you did, you'd find that the obstinate refusal to compete is what has yielded whatever challenges blue collar the worker faces.



                          No. We are not. The Navy and Air Force are not going to order any more F-16's or F-18's, as both are being replaced because they are obsolete. Any further air frames of those types will be going to overseas markets.
                          How do you compete with $1.00 an hour labor? One of the biggest problems in the world economy is monetary evaluation. What will that $1.00 buy in China and what will in buy in the U.S. In China it may feed a family for a day. In the U.S. it might buy a Mounds Bar.

                          ?


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by OldmanDan View Post

                            How do you compete with $1.00 an hour labor? One of the biggest problems in the world economy is monetary evaluation. What will that $1.00 buy in China and what will in buy in the U.S. In China it may feed a family for a day. In the U.S. it might buy a Mounds Bar.
                            What will a single Chinese laborer produce? A tenth of what an American worker will produce? A twentith? At a tenth or twentieth of the quality.

                            The solution is not to see how much money you can strong-arm out of an intellectual property owner, but to produce that product as efficiently as possible, more than anyone else. If you do that, people will seek you out to make things for them.

                            ?


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by OldmanDan View Post

                              How do you compete with $1.00 an hour labor? One of the biggest problems in the world economy is monetary evaluation. What will that $1.00 buy in China and what will in buy in the U.S. In China it may feed a family for a day. In the U.S. it might buy a Mounds Bar.
                              You cannot compete with it, which is why the founders protected America with tariffs that did not allow cheap labor overseas to wreck our economy. A caveat though. The only way one can compete with extremely low labor is by robotics. The jobs offshored to mexico and china were human labor jobs, not robotics. So it must not be affordable yet for robots to replace humans in some sectors of manufacturing. And those have been the ones offshored.

                              Commodore has these ideals, driven by his ideological beliefs, which just don't seem to happen in reality, only on paper, or in the mind of some people, doing thought experiments. We already know what tariffs to protect America yields, for the founders installed them right after old George took office. For some other nation to take the place of our domestic economy was unthinkable. Unthinkable because it is not in the interest of America, from the big picture view. This will never change, no matter what changes occur in technology. Technology just makes it easier to offshore America's economy.

                              Extremely low wages from other nations, all of them with an impoverished population, have always been there. This is not new. What is new is this monumental change, caused by deserting the economic thinking of the founders, when the profits of elite capitalists were put above the best interest of America. Foundationally this is what it actually reduces down to. This change in attitude puts capitalist interests of a small group, in the number one place, deeming it more important than the health of America. The founders did the opposite of this, and gave us a system, that was good enough to win ww2 by out producing with our manufacturing base. Our protected economy is what made America the world's super power. The economy you see now would not produce this. This economy could not have won ww2. It is intrinsically flawed and is not the economy of healthy nation. Common sense, which our founders had, but free traders do not have, IMO.

                              ?

                              Working...
                              X