MADE IN CHINA « The Burning Platform

29 Comments

http://www.theburningplatform.com/?p=41091 « CaduceusX | News Now. says:

[...] http://www.theburningplatform.com/?p=41091 [...]

Like or Dislike: 0 0

23rd September 2012 at 11:38 am
AWD says:

Chinese bought more new cars than Americans last year. China buys more oil from Saudi Arabia than the U.S. 55,000 manufacturing facilities have closed in the U.S., 8,000,000 people are unemployed. The U.S. is shipping $500,000,000,000 (trade deficit) overseas every year, mostly to China.

China doesn’t have 145,000,000 people on Welfare, disability, and social security. That’s hilarious really, the farmers can’t find any Americans to work on the farm (it’s hard work, after all), they are too lazy, dependent on the government and entitlements, so they use Mexicans.

China owns more than $2 trillion of our IOU’s. China doesn’t allow imports. Wal Mart is bleeding this country dry so 5 Waltons can make many more billions every year, but sell 80% Chinese products. Almost 40% of Wal Marts business is SNAP/EBT/Welfare; you tax dollars.

This video is hilarious. People won’t stop buying Chinese products or Japanese cars until the economy collapses. They can’t see that buying Toyotas/Lexus’s and shopping at Wal Mart will lead to the collapse of our economy and country. China won, Japan won, we lost. Game over.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: 25 3

23rd September 2012 at 12:10 pm
AWD says:

Oh, the irony.

China, a former communist country, turns to capitalism and wipes us out (and Europe).

America, former democratic capitalistic country, turns to socialism and communism, and is wiped out.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: 36 1

23rd September 2012 at 12:20 pm
IndenturedServant says:

I’m truly sorry that Americans are losing their jobs because of cheap labor but Americans, blinded by pseudo wealth, are to blame for this shit. We seemingly believe that “As long as I’m getting mine, fuck everybody else” is the name of the game. We are about to reap the rewards of our attitudes. The only good thing about this is that people are waking up. The majority of them are good people who drank the kool-aid and are now being forcibly woken up to the cold reality our owners are forging for us. I still believe there are far more good people in this country than bad. More than a few of the bad will eventually see the light as well.

It is going to be a good long while before enough people are woken up to reality of our situation. It might be a decade away but when that day comes, it will not be a good day for our elected criminals. What our leaders will never learn is that you cannot force freedom and democracy through war, onto people who have never fought or sacrificed for it, but more importantly, those who have fought and sacrificed for it, or simply were born into it, are not going to give it up without a fight. Getting from here to there is going to be quite an experience. Our elected criminals will be replaced and new path for this country will be forged by the people. With a little luck, our elected criminals and soon to be former owners, will live long enough to see some real justice. My only fear is that I’ll not live to see it.
I_S

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: 24 0

23rd September 2012 at 12:59 pm
ThePessimisticChemist says:

“The MBAs running our mega-corporations have gutted their U.S. product market in order to hit their quarterly ROI and bonus goals.”

Bingo. Our country is gutting itself, and the ones leading the charge are the management.

Ever notice how layoffs only ever hit the PRODUCING members of the company? Go look. Useless middle/upper management tards will stay until the company goes under, while cutting the producing members of the company down to nothing the whole time.

And we wonder why the modern corporation is such a fragile thing. What douchebags we mortals be.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: 13 0

23rd September 2012 at 1:14 pm
Willy2 says:

And how many of the readers of this thread own stocks and bonds of US comanies that have outsourced production to China ? Yes, those companies could bring back production back to the Us. But then the profits of those companies will go down.

Or US production costs will have to come down to the level of China. And that means that both wages but also the burden of government regulation in the US will have to shrink down to China’s level.

What a lot of folks in the US don’t know is that China is in deep do-do as well. Since the year 2000 China’s growth has gone ballistic but what a lot of folks haven’t grasped is that debts in China have gone ballistic AS WELL, in the same timeframe. And China is effectively bankrupt, and imploding right now.

E.g., luxury car maker Mercedes Benz has recently warned that they wouldn’t be able meet earnings estimates. They reported that chinese sales were (something along the lines of) “far behind expectations”.

Shrinking/imploding chinese economy, anyone ?

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: 11 2

23rd September 2012 at 1:53 pm
ThePessimisticChemist says:

@Willy2 –

Please note that the US economy was stronger before we began outsourcing every job possible.

Bring back trade tariffs, produce our shit in the US, and watch jobless rates fall while QOL goes upwards.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: 10 2

23rd September 2012 at 2:04 pm
jimski says:

” and how many readers of this thread own stocks and bonds”

Now why in the fuck would anyone here have money in bonds when we have seen that with a declaration the govenrment can throw out the bond agreement. Seen it happen. Even the supreme court upheld it. Stocks? Seriously stocks?

I have my money in the only safe investment out there. New car finance default swaps.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: 16 0

23rd September 2012 at 2:06 pm
Willy2 says:

The reason for outsourcing was that wages & the burden of government was higher in the late 1970s than abroad. US companies faced competition from abroad. That forced US companies to keep a lid on US wage growth. At the same time the (financial) burden of government continued to grow.

Trade tariffs won’t help because it will break the back of international trade.

From about 1950 up to say 1973 the US debt-to-GDP ratio remained – more or less – flat. The trouble began in about 1974 when the US debt-to-GDP ratio started to rise. And a rising debt-to -GDP ratio ALWAYS leads to a financial crisis.
Source: Steve Keen
http://www.debtdeflation.com/blogs/

Hot debate. What do you think? 7 3

23rd September 2012 at 2:22 pm
card802 says:

美國擰，接受它，你的生活，該死的政治家。

Like or Dislike: 3 0

23rd September 2012 at 3:11 pm
Stucky says:

Your government (Federal, State, and local) doesn’t give a fuck about you.

The company you work for almost surely doesn’t give a fuck about you.

The companies you do business with don’t really give a fuck about you … beyond platitudes and lip service.

Your “fellow Americans” don’t give a fuck about you — it’s everyone for themselves.

Don’t even ask me if I think whatever deity you believe in, actually gives a fuck about you.

.
So, why do you give a fuck about anything? Really? Quite a conundrum we live in.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: 14 3

23rd September 2012 at 3:22 pm
Hollow man says:

I am impressed card but i want to learn our future launuage too. Please,! , what does it say!

Like or Dislike: 3 0

23rd September 2012 at 6:29 pm
Fool on The Hill says:

re: Stucky says……The Gov………..

In the early seventies Art Buchwald posted an article in his syndicated column titled “Labor gives tit for tat.”
He remarked about bosses crying that workers really didn’t care that the company needed them to work weekends and overtime etc.
Art continued that these same bosses would pink slip workers in a heartbeat when it served their agenda.
This was over forty years ago and the only change has been the situation has gotten worse.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: 5 0

23rd September 2012 at 6:46 pm
Zarathustra says:

Not to worry. We’re still very good at making bombs, bullets and missiles and we know how to use them.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: 8 0

23rd September 2012 at 6:59 pm
Ron says:

Ive been telling people about this since NAFTA and Ross Perot times.I figured the goal was to bring down our standard of living and bring other countrys up,until all the workers are poor.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: 6 0

23rd September 2012 at 12:12 am
backwardsevolution says:

Willy2 – I agree with your synopsis of China. It is going down, highly in debt. That’s why all of the corrupt Chinese are fleeing to the West. They know the gig is up! That place is going to erupt when the peasants realize they have been plundered.

The elite in China are no different than the elite in the West. They have looted their countries dry.

“And how many of the readers of this thread own stocks and bonds of US comanies that have outsourced production to China ? Yes, those companies could bring back production back to the Us. But then the profits of those companies will go down.”

Bang on!

Like or Dislike: 2 0

23rd September 2012 at 12:58 am
Llpoh says:

There are some monumentally stupid comments on this thread. People advocating tariffs. People saying only the producers get laid off and not management.

IS is quite right.

Do not blame corps – they are in it to make money, pure and simple. Their management is stupid, as Admin says, because they are not seeing the long- term view.

If Americans had bought American made instead of cheap foreign shit, had kept their skills up, stayed out of debt, etc etc, things would have been different. Managers simply respond to the behavior of the consumer. Which came first, the chicken or the egg?

Hot debate. What do you think? 5 3

23rd September 2012 at 3:28 am
backwardsevolution says:

Llpoh – who’s on first? Speaking of chicken or egg:

Was it the consumers screaming for cheaper products that came first, or was it the corporations wanting higher profits that took the jobs overseas?

Corporations have stated that wages are too high here. Did people just ask for higher wages out of the blue, or did the non-stop inflation precipitate them asking for raises? Take inflation out of the equation, and wages wouldn’t need to have been raised at all.

Corporations have stated that there’s too many regulations here. Did these regulations (especially environmental ones) just occur out of the blue, or were there blatant examples of dumping toxic waste into rivers, etc.?

Managers simply respond to the behavior of the consumer? Partly true. But isn’t it also true that consumers simply respond to the continuous and never-ending advertising and propaganda spewed from the elite-owned media? I mean, it’s everywhere!

The people have been LED, they believed in their government. Why the hell wouldn’t you? They’re supposed to be acting for YOUR benefit.

The chicken has led every step of the way, and you know it. The egg is starting to hatch; it is waking up. Wait until it opens its eyes.

Like or Dislike: 3 0

23rd September 2012 at 4:28 am
backwardsevolution says:

Ross Perot and “The Giant Sucking Sound”:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rkgx1C_S6ls

$1.00/hour in wages, no health care, no retirement benefits, no environmental regulations = the giant sucking sound.

Lloph – remind me again, what came first? Oh, yeah, right, the corporations took the jobs overseas for our benefit. Riiiiiiiiiiight.

Watch Bush Sr. and Clinton squirm.

Like or Dislike: 2 0

23rd September 2012 at 4:37 am
Anonymous says:

Free trade as promised has failed to enrich the global Hoi polloi equally and has been wholly ineffective at preventing war on any scale.
Free trade is a load of fascist bullshit deigned to allow international banksters exploit cheap labor of despotic controlled countries.

Under the mantle of free trade , Americans have been dumbed down to the ranks of mindless consumers while global corporation have grown exponentially wealthy exploiting the human capital markets of third world slave labor camps which effectively severed the chain of wealth created by a productive American middle classed now forced into service sector jobs.

What good is the importation of cheap Chinese crap if Americans no longer have the expendable income to spend on it?

TRUTH & FICTION
The religion of free trade
Exclusive: Vox Day notes that chief intellectual legacy of doctrine is dishonesty

Let us suppose I told you of a certain doctrine in which millions of people believe without ever having read the book in which it is contained, which is predicated upon a situation that has never existed, and promises positive consequences that not only have never been delivered, but we are told cannot even be measured and cannot be realized without achieving something that has never been done before in the history of man. Furthermore, the doctrine was developed by a successful gambler and politician with absolutely no credentials or qualifications on the subject, which he had never even encountered before the age of 27, in tandem with a related theory that is so obviously insane that barely anyone has ever even heard of it.

So long as we are careful to set aside any reliance upon the genetic fallacy, does this sound like a doctrine that is not only infallible, but one that it would be crazy to even consider questioning? And yet, the fervor with which the advocates of the free-trade doctrine defend David Ricardo’s outdated, disproven theory of comparative advantage and decry those who question it is so ferocious as to indicate the nature of a belief that can only be described as religious.

David Ricardo was without question a brilliant and successful man, but what is much less often noted is how intellectually dishonest he was. In a previous WND column, titled Free Trade Harms America, I showed how Joseph Schumpeter labeled his peculiar and tautological method of argument the “Ricardian Vice.” Furthermore, he was not even the original author of the theory of Comparative Advantage, it having been first introduced by Robert Torrens in “An Essay on the External Corn Trade” two years before Ricardo transformed a specific argument for a specific situation into something passing for a general principle, which he published “On the Principles of Political Economy and Taxation.”

The chief legacy of David Ricardo’s free-trade doctrine, beyond its pernicious utilization by globalists and fascistic, anti-democratic organizations such as the European Union, is one of intellectual dishonesty. In Europe and the Americas, every so-called free-trade agreement has been signed over the objection of critics who object, correctly, that the effects will be precisely the opposite of those promised by those pushing the agreements. From the European Coal and Steel Community to NAFTA and the recent trade agreement with South Korea, the real objectives and eventual results have been very different from those promised. As Pat Buchanan demonstrated in his recent column titled “We need more economic nationalists,” free-trade doctrine fails catastrophically every time it is forced to prove itself as a predictive model.

This legacy of shameless dishonesty can be seen in the desperate attempt of free traders to separate the free movement of labor that has always been a part of the doctrine of free trade (and is in fact absolutely necessary to it) from the free movement of capital. Due to the public disaffection with mass immigration that is belatedly sweeping the West, free traders are now attempting to artificially distinguish the free trade in goods, which does not necessarily require immigration, from the free trade in services, which does, in order to make their doctrine less politically unpalatable. It can also be seen in the writings of Gary North, an elderly historian and self-styled “tea-party economist,” as he asserts that skepticism concerning free-trade doctrine amounts to nothing more than “trust in state power” and “faith in the economic productivity of men with badges and guns,” and that free trade is the litmus test of economics.

The idea that such an intrinsically flawed doctrine, one which has literally nothing to do with the economic operation of a domestic market that serves as the basis for most economic theory, could serve a litmus test for economic knowledge is absurd on its face. But North is guilty of far more than absurdity, as he also lies about the critics of the free-trade doctrine, even though he is, by his own admission, almost entirely ignorant of what their actual arguments are.

Ian Fletcher’s criticism of fair trade presented in “Free Trade Doesn’t Work” alone is sufficient to disprove North’s ridiculous claim that critics of free trade “always adopt arguments that apply only to America’s side of the border.” But North wouldn’t know that, because instead of bothering to read any of Fletcher’s books or articles devoted to the subject or addressing any of Fletcher’s many substantive criticisms of free-trade doctrine, he resorts to the genetic fallacy that could be much more justly applied to Ricardo in calling Fletcher “a man who is on the payroll of a industry trade association that promotes protective tariffs.”

As for North’s inept attempt to dismiss my suggestion that there may be an Austrian School case to be made against free trade, as unlikely as it may sound, one doesn’t have to read my entire response to his article on Lew Rockwell to see that North completely failed to grasp how free trade, in circumstances that just happen to closely match those seen at present in the United States, could exacerbate the problem of excessive debt that Ludwig von Mises and the Austrian economists consider to be the primary cause of economic distress.

There are a variety of perspectives from which the free-trade doctrine can be considered. But it must not be forgotten that Ricardo was not an economist in the modern sense, and his works were political economy. There are arguments for and against free trade that are purely economic and theoretical, but they must be carefully distinguished from those that are practical, political and even moral. And when the advocates of free trade assert the intrinsic perfection of free trade on a moral basis, it should be recognized that this is not an economic argument, but rather a religious on

http://www.wnd.com/2012/06/the-religion-of-free-trade/

Like or Dislike: 1 0

23rd September 2012 at 8:05 am
flash says:

The slave labor working the FREE MARKET seems to becoming a tad restless..

If only Americans were as smart and industrious as the humble Chinese, we then might be building IPhones on American soil……

Report: Riots break out at Foxconn factory in China
It is still unclear what exactly happened, but posts on China’s popular twitter-like service, Weibo, from users in the area show photographs and video of large numbers of police in and around the factory – many in riot gear – blocking off throngs of people.

Other photos show debris strewn around the Foxconn compound and in one case, an overturned guard tower.

According to popular tech blog engadget, the disturbance kicked off after Foxconn security guards allegedly hit a worker around 10 p.m. on Sunday.

Censors in China have reportedly already started deleting pictures from the scene.

This is not the first time that Foxconn has had problems with its Taiyuan facility, which is reportedly responsible for the fabrication of the back plate of the immensely popular new iPhone 5. In March, strikes broke out there after workers did not receive a pay raise they had reportedly been promised.

Like or Dislike: 2 0

23rd September 2012 at 8:35 am
flash says:

http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/09/23/14049889-report-riots-break-out-at-foxconn-factory-in-china

Of course you do….

Like or Dislike: 2 0

23rd September 2012 at 8:39 am
Stucky says:

Fuckin crazy ass Chinks … making 17 bucks a week, and now they riot?? Ungrateful fuks.

————————————-

Riots break out at Foxconn factory in China

By Ed Flanagan, NBC News

Reports early Monday from China suggest that a mass disturbance or riots may have broken out at a Foxconn factory in the Chinese city of Taiyuan.

It is still unclear what exactly happened, but posts on China’s popular twitter-like service, Weibo, from users in the area show photographs and video of large numbers of police in and around the factory – many in riot gear – blocking off throngs of people.

Other photos show debris strewn around the Foxconn compound and in one case, an overturned guard tower.

According to popular tech blog engadget, the disturbance kicked off after Foxconn security guards allegedly hit a worker around 10 p.m. on Sunday.

Censors in China have reportedly already started deleting pictures from the scene.

This is not the first time that Foxconn has had problems with its Taiyuan facility, which is reportedly responsible for the fabrication of the back plate of the immensely popular new iPhone 5. In March, strikes broke out there after workers did not receive a pay raise they had reportedly been promised.

Meanwhile, Foxconn’s Chengdu plant in Sichuan province also has dealt with riots. In June, scores of Foxconn workers there got into a fight with a local restaurant owner that had to be broken up by police.

Foxconn is the Taiwanese electronics manufacturer responsible for much of the current production and assembly of Apple’s popular line of products as well as a wide variety of popular tech toys ranging from laptops to gaming consoles.

But Foxconn has been under fire for years for its tough working conditions, including long hours, low wages and strict rules on representation. The company has also dealt with a string of suicides at its plants across China, which led to the company in 2010 installing anti-jump nets to prevent more suicide attempts.

The company has taken steps to improve working conditions in its factories by reducing work hours and raising wages for its front-line workers.

Still, perhaps wary of the continued negative publicity that has plagued one of its primary manufacturers over the years, Apple recently took steps to diversify its portfolio of producers, recently awarding much of the manufacturing of its new iteration of the iPad to another Taiwanese company, Pegatron

Like or Dislike: 2 0

23rd September 2012 at 8:43 am
Stucky says:

Sorry flash …. posted at same time

Like or Dislike: 0 0

23rd September 2012 at 8:44 am
flash says:

loopy gets it wrong.Putting Americans back to work has nothing to do with education, it’s simply a labor issue.
For Americans to get back in the manufacturing game all is needed a strong leader willing to round up a couple million out of work Americans , lock them in a factory surrounded by razor wire and work their sorry asses of 24/7 , producing widgets for for pennies a day .

People don’t know what they need until a strong government shows ‘em… And that’s the sole purpose of government …to work the people.

No successful government can allow a populace to sit idle and still consider its rule successful.

To best compete in a global free market America must start building our own slave labor camps and if a chank worker can survive on 15 cents a day, our workers willmake it on 10.

And, that’s how to do American exceptionalism ,baby .

Slave labor is the new free market economy.

Like or Dislike: 3 0

23rd September 2012 at 9:16 am
Anonymous says:

Damn stupid protectionists .

There’s absolutely no reason under the sun , that Americans can’t compete with Chinese labor on a level 15 cents an hour level playing field.

Ian Fletcher on Why Free Trade Doesn’t Work
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xWZkHozvDfM

Why a Flat Tariff on All U.S. Imports Would Work
Important
Funny
Typical
Scary
Outrageous
Amazing
Innovative
Finally
Read More: Free Trade , Free Trade Agreements , Protectionism , Tariff , Politics News

I advocate protectionism. But one standard criticism is that this would just result in politically connected industries getting tariffs raised on the products they produce. This would corrupt our economy, force consumers to pay higher prices, and serve no legitimate economic logic.

Sounds logical enough. As the 19th-century American radical economist Henry George put it, “introducing a tariff bill into a congress or parliament is like throwing a banana into a cage of monkeys.”

So let’s just cut that Gordian knot right now: what America needs isn’t some complicated system of tariffs, but a flat tariff, the same on every imported good and service.

The exact level at which to set the tariff is an open question. For the sake of argument, we can take 30% as a hypothetical figure, because it is in the historic range of U.S. tariffs and is close to the net pressure on America’s trade balance due to foreign nations’ VAT or value-added taxes. The right level will not be something trivial, like 2%, or prohibitive, like 150%. But there is no reason it shouldn’t be 25 or 35%, and this flexibility will provide wiggle room for the compromises needed to get a tariff through Congress.

A flat tariff would be imperfect, but it would be infinitely better than free trade and relatively politics-proof. Above all, it is a policy people are unlikely to support for the wrong reasons (AKA producer special interests) because it does not single out any specific industries for protection. It would thus maximize the incentive for voters and Congress to evaluate protectionism in terms of whether it would benefit the country as a whole–which is precisely the question they should be asking.

A flat tariff would also create the right balance of special-interest pressures: some interests would favor a higher tariff, others a lower one. This is a prerequisite for fruitful debate, as it means both views will find institutional homes and political patrons.

A flat tariff’s uniformity across industries would avoid the problems that occur when upstream but not downstream industries get tariff protection. For example, if steel-consuming industries do not get a tariff when steel gets one, they will become disadvantaged relative to their foreign competitors by the higher cost of American-made steel. And why should steelworkers be protected from foreign competition at the price of forcing everyone else to pay more for goods containing steel? The only reasonable solution is that steelworkers should pay a tariff-protected price for the goods they buy, too. This logic ultimately means that all goods should be subject to the same tariff.

A flat tariff would have other benefits, too. For one thing, it would avoid the danger of getting stuck with a tariff policy that made sense when it was adopted but gradually became an outdated captive of special interests over time, always a risk with tariffs. Although it is a fixed policy, it would not be fixed in its effects, but would automatically adapt to the evolution of industries over time. In 1900, it would have protected the American garment industry from foreign (then mostly European) competition. It wouldn’t do that today. As which industries are good industries changes over time, which industries it protects will change accordingly.

A flat tariff would trigger the relocation back to the U.S. of the right industries. For example, a 30% tariff would not cause the relocation of the apparel industry back to the U.S. from abroad. The difference between domestic and foreign labor costs is simply too large for a 30% premium to tip the balance in America’s favor in an industry based on semi-skilled labor. But a 30% tariff quite likely would cause the relocation of high-tech manufacturing like semiconductors. This is key, as these industries are precisely the ones we should want to relocate. These capital-intensive, knowledge-intensive industries support high wages and have bright technological futures.

Another objection to a tariff is that if any industry is granted protection, it will just slumber behind it. Some industries indeed long to shut out foreign competition, reach a lazy detente with domestic rivals, then coast along with high profitability and low innovation. But a flat tariff resists this danger because it does not hand out a blank check of protection: it gives a certain percentage and no more. Any industry that cannot get its costs within striking distance of its foreign competitors will not be saved by it. This discipline, although unpleasant for the losers, is the price we must pay for having a tariff that actually works, rather than one which eliminates the discipline of foreign competition entirely and protects all industries indiscriminately.

The political bickering that a tariff varying by industry would cause also militates in favor of a flat tariff. The inability of different industries to coalesce around a common tariff proposal sabotaged efforts to achieve a tariff in 1972-74, but this is a policy around which the greatest possible number of industries can unite.

A flat tariff is also more ideologically palatable than most other tariff solutions. Above all, it respects the free market by leaving all specific decisions about which industries a tariff will favor up to the marketplace. It will thus be considerably easier for ideological devotees of free markets to swallow than some scheme in which tariffs are set by a federal agency, leading to that nightmare of free-marketeers: government picking winners. In the real world, zero government intervention in the economy is impossible, so the issue for believers in economic freedom and small government is to design policies that work through the smallest possible, carefully chosen interventions. This is precisely what the natural strategic tariff offers because it operates at the periphery of our economy, leaving most of its internal mechanisms untouched. In fact, the more wisely we control our economic border, the less we will probably need to control the inside of our economy.

(One final note: a flat tariff would need to include a rebate on reexported goods in order to avoid handicapping American exporters. This would include both goods that are transshipped without modification and goods that are exported after value-added processing. The latter includes everything from chocolate made from imported cocoa to computers made from imported chips. This is implied by its intrinsic logic as a tax on domestic consumption. Other nations follow the same logic in rebating VAT to their exporters.)

This Blogger’s Books from

Like or Dislike: 2 0

23rd September 2012 at 12:35 pm
Llpoh says:

You potectionists are idiots. If I put everything you don’t know about business on cd, it would overflow the Smithsonian.

The drainage started with Taiwan and the Japs selling cheap stuff, which the consumer gobbled up with enthusiasm. To compete, business had to meet the lowered price point. And the consumer chased ever lower prices. Do you think Wal-mart started out just selling foreign crap?

Buy a clue and then talk to me, you morons.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: 6 0

23rd September 2012 at 4:15 pm
Maddie's Mom says:

That does it!!!

I’m buying those Made in the USA jeans!

So what if they’re $130 a pair?!?!

I’m doing my part to keep America working. (Besides, they may be priceless someday.)

I wonder if dh will support my consumer “activism”? lol

Like or Dislike: 2 0

23rd September 2012 at 4:36 pm
a cruel accountant says:

Where I work african americans are replacing the mexicans on the cleaning crew.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/for-first-time-since-depression-more-mexicans-leave-us-than-enter/2012/04/23/gIQApyiDdT_story.html

Like or Dislike: 0 0

23rd September 2012 at 11:07 pm

The Burning Platform

SUBSCRIBE

29 Comments

Leave a comment

If you feel you have received some value from this site, donations will be gratefully accepted to help support my efforts to provide you with the truth about our unsustainable economic policies

Make Recurring Donation

To Donate by Check

Random Quote

Recent Comments

ADVERTISERS

Latest Posts

Site Info

Merchandise

FINANCIAL

EMERGENCY PREPARATION

Cost of War

The Gross National Debt

Cost of Peak Oil

Older Articles

Favorite Websites

Recommended Books

Archive Articles

Fourth Turning Library

Connect

Popular Tags