Time Travel Proven

[Brass Magnet]

[snip]Moving on. Take another shot. I won't respond.

Thank you Jesus!

*Fires shot across the bow of the U.S.S. Statist*

Back OT.....

After WWII it was the Japanese that made the cheap stuff, then it was the Taiwanese, now it's the Chinese, soon to be the Vietnamese.

Remember back about 20 years when everyone was complaining that robots were taking their jobs? All robots did was replace 3 or 4 low skill workers a piece and replace them with one skilled worker. Of course, many companies were demonized for automating, but those that did survived on American soil. Now the Chinese feel about the same as alot of American workers did 20-30 years ago. They constantly like to throw more people at the problem, and all they really want to do is make thousands of widgets instead of one-off high precision products. They don't like efficeincy because it takes jobs away from people. They would gladly dig holes all day, just to fill them in again if it gives a person a job. I think this will be their undoing. Labor costs in China are skyrocketing by 5% to 8% a year and although they got away with low efficeincy in the past because of cheap labor, those days are ending. Next stop? Probably Vietnam, but that won't last forever either. Pretty soon it won't be much cheaper in one country over another.

The best thing the government can do right now (besides generally getting out of the way) is to end the huge taxes on repatriated money. That way companies that do business overseas can bring their profit back here and reinvest it in the U.S. With the current taxes, it would be stupid for a company to do that.

 

[stainless1911]

Why do they build cheap junk to begin with? One would assume the preference would be to gain a good reputation. When you read a sticker that says "Made in Hong Kong, you have a different reaction than when you read a sticker that says "Made in Germany".

 

[Brass Magnet]

Why do they build cheap junk to begin with? One would assume the preference would be to gain a good reputation. When you read a sticker that says "Made in Hong Kong, you have a different reaction than when you read a sticker that says "Made in Germany".

Because people will buy it. Caveat emptor!
Let's say you want to buy something you know you'll only need once. I don't mind buying junk for that. Why spend a bunch of moola on it? On the other hand, if I want something that's going to last, the manufacturing country will weigh heavilly on the decision.

 

[stainless1911]

I can remember even at 5 years old, the first thing I would do, when I opened a new toy, was to flip it over, and look for a "Made in Hong Kong" sticker, I can still recall the disappointment when I found it, because I knew my new toy wasnt going to last very long.

 

[Gunslinger]

I can remember even at 5 years old, the first thing I would do, when I opened a new toy, was to flip it over, and look for a "Made in Hong Kong" sticker, I can still recall the disappointment when I found it, because I knew my new toy wasnt going to last very long.

That's funny. When I was a kid, it was "Made in Japan" that meant it was junk. Times do change--now Korean made is as good as Jap in many areas.

 

[KBCraig]

Remember back about 20 years when everyone was complaining that robots were taking their jobs? All robots did was replace 3 or 4 low skill workers a piece and replace them with one skilled worker. Of course, many companies were demonized for automating, but those that did survived on American soil.

And, contrary to conventional wisdom, U.S. manufacturing output continues to grow. It's simply not true that America doesn't produce anything any more; far fewer American jobs produce far more goods than ever before.

http://www.economistblog.com/2009/0...h-end-and-the-usa-is-still-the-global-leader/

Now... what was the topic?

 

[eye95]

Does that "manufacturing more" take into account inflation, increased population, and increased consumption? Has our increased manufacturing kept pace with these other increases?

More importantly, what are we manufacturing? Prior to WWII, our manufacturing base was easily able to switch to a mode of manufacturing weapons systems including ships, planes, and tanks. We also were able to process large amounts of raw materials into secondary materials, like steel. Can we do that now? Are we that self-sufficient? Do we have enough ability to produce fuels should we need them to defend ourselves?

Its not just that we can manufacture, it is "Can we manufacture enough of what we need should the international situation force us into self-sufficiency at a dramatically elevated level?" I'd say no.

 

[stainless1911]

Winner.

There is no way as a nation that we could support ourselves, in a war, or otherwise. We cant even employ enough of our own people to keep our cities looking nice, and functioning properly.

 

[Brass Magnet]

Winner.

There is no way as a nation that we could support ourselves, in a war, or otherwise. We cant even employ enough of our own people to keep our cities looking nice, and functioning properly.

Meh........ Give me a blueprint of what you want and my company could be churning out small arms in under 4 weeks even though we've never made them. Catapillar could be building tanks in 8. Actual full-time defense contractors like Electric Boat, Northrup, and others could ramp up production on a moments notice.

I actually work for an American manufacturer as a manufacturing engineer. I'm pretty good at assessing what we can do or I wouldn't have a job. I also get to see other manufacturers all the time at tradeshows like IMTS Chicago. Manufacturing is alive in this country and with a little poke of a stick can be churning out way more than we are currently and more efficeintly than ever before.

 

[since9]

There is no way as a nation that we could support ourselves, in a war, or otherwise. We cant even employ enough of our own people to keep our cities looking nice, and functioning properly.

Sure we can. The problem is, WE DON'T employ them. Were you aware 40% of Americans are on food stamps? If they had work, why would they be on food stamps? On the other hand, since they're on food stamps and not working, it's time to put them to work! "If they do not work, let them not eat." - The bible.

 

[Brass Magnet]

Heck, I was looking through my files and.......

....I've even got the CAD models!

 

[stainless1911]

Sure we can. The problem is, WE DON'T employ them. Were you aware 40% of Americans are on food stamps? If they had work, why would they be on food stamps? On the other hand, since they're on food stamps and not working, it's time to put them to work! "If they do not work, let them not eat." - The bible.

Right, because our jobs have been going over seas, or replaced by technology. Technology is a good thing, but like anything else, it can be over used.

Im on food stamps, should I starve?

 

[PracticalTactical]

He has some good points, was prescient, and remarkably similar to Ron Paul--even to saying some of the same wack-a-doodle stuff, like isolationism and returning to the gold standard. This is why the John Birchers went nowhere--and neither will Ron Paul.

"isolationism"

Inconceivable!

You use that word a lot. I do not think it means what you think it means.

 

[PracticalTactical]

Sure we can. The problem is, WE DON'T employ them. Were you aware 40% of Americans are on food stamps? If they had work, why would they be on food stamps? On the other hand, since they're on food stamps and not working, it's time to put them to work! "If they do not work, let them not eat." - The bible.

To be on food stamps they either require somebody have a job or business with some income. There are a lot of people who work at Wal-Mart and similar stores on food stamps.

 

[eye95]

"isolationism"

Inconceivable!

You use that word a lot. I do not think it means what you think it means.

I don't think it means what the paulbots have redefined it to mean to eliminate their guy from the ranks of the isolationists.

 

[Brass Magnet]

Blah blah blah

I don't think it means what the paulbots have redefined it to mean to eliminate their guy from the ranks of the isolationists.

Again with this?!!

You are the one who's redefined it. There's been plenty of posts to prove that yet you just keep going. Once again, you have as much in common with being an isolationist as Ron Paul does. There's a clear difference between non-intervention and isolationism whether you choose to see it or not.

 

[marshaul]

I don't think it means what the paulbots have redefined it to mean to eliminate their guy from the ranks of the isolationists.

That's right, forget the long history of non-interventionist thought, from Paine to Washington to Adams to Jefferson. The "paulbots" made it up!

The willful ignorance displayed here is simultaneously astounding and completely, expectedly within character.

eye95 apparently firmly believes that to engage in the mutual exchange of commodities and ideas with some countries, necessitates our being at war with the remainder. Evidently, he can see no means by which the US can participate in global affairs without our young men killing and being killed.

Or maybe he doesn't care about that mutual exchange of commodities and ideas. Maybe killing people is the only objective, for him. His patent unwillingness to recognize a conceivable difference between isolationism and non-interventionism does make one wonder.

You know, eye95 (or maybe you don't), you can still oppose non-interventionism on its own merits. But God forbid you engage in any debate without first redefining language manipulatively in your favor! Why admit to being an interventionist when you can call the rest of us isolationists, eh?

Don't worry, you've been called once again. Your sophistry stands plain for all to see, invisible only to your own deluded self.

 

[Jack House]

To be on food stamps they either require somebody have a job or business with some income. There are a lot of people who work at Wal-Mart and similar stores on food stamps.

Most people that work at places like Wal-Mart can not afford to both eat and pay rent. I personally know that most people employed by Wal-Mart require food stamps or simply would not be able to feed themselves or their kids. I know, people are going to say "well, if they aren't getting paid enough, go somewhere else." Where else are they going to go?

 

[Brass Magnet]

Most people that work at places like Wal-Mart can not afford to both eat and pay rent. I personally know that most people employed by Wal-Mart require food stamps or simply would not be able to feed themselves or their kids. I know, people are going to say "well, if they aren't getting paid enough, go somewhere else." Where else are they going to go?

Conversely, maybe if people can work at Wal-Mart and still get food stamps they will work at Wal-Mart; but if they couldn't, Wal-Mart would be forced to raise it's wages to get workers. Maybe land lords would have lower rent if housing bubbles weren't supported by the government. Maybe the money we all use would be worth more if trillions more of it were'nt printed. Maybe if the government really wanted stimulus they should have paid off every private home owners mortgage in the entire country which they literally could have done with the 12 trillion they've spent proping up fannie, freddy, "too big to fails" wall street, banking cronies and foreign banks.

Basically, in my view, big government has caused most of the problems we face and I think there is a lot to back up that assertion. True free markets would stabalize and even things out a lot IMO. As for the people who fall through the cracks, they would get taken care of by us and not the government since we'd have our money back.

 

[END_THE_FED]

Most people that work at places like Wal-Mart can not afford to both eat and pay rent. I personally know that most people employed by Wal-Mart require food stamps or simply would not be able to feed themselves or their kids. I know, people are going to say "well, if they aren't getting paid enough, go somewhere else." Where else are they going to go?

Some people would also say. " If they don't make enough money, why did they choose to have kids?"