Executive Summary
- The U.S. has become a nation preoccupied with consumption over investment; outsourcing its jobs, hollowing out its middle class, and accumulating increasing debt burdens to do so.
- U.S. wages and salaries have plunged to the lowest share of GDP in history, while the civilian labor force participation rate has dropped to levels not seen since the 1970’s. Yet consumption as a share of GDP is near a record high. This gap between income and expenses has been financed by debt accumulation, encouraged by the Federal Reserve’s policy of zero interest rates, and enabled by fiscal policies that prioritize income replacement rather than targeted spending and investment.
- Since December 1999, total civilian employment among individuals 55 years of age and older has increased by 15.3 million jobs. Yet total civilian employment – including those over 55 – has grown by only 13.8 million jobs. This means exactly what you think: outside of workers 55 years of age and older, Americans of working age have 1.5 million fewer jobs today than 15 years ago.
- There are now more than 46 million Americans on food stamps, with SNAP (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program) expenditures increasing five-fold since 2000.
- While transfer payments and entitlements have increased, government consumption and investment as a share of GDP have declined to near the lowest levels in history. In effect, fiscal policy has been heavily biased toward income replacement, but has otherwise been a deer in the headlights in the face of repeated economic crisis. While the contribution of private investment has slowed to a crawl, fiscal policy – except for transfer payments – has actually been in retreat.
- In the investment sector, real gross private domestic investment has grown at a rate of just 1.5% annually since 1999 (versus a 4.7% real annual rate in prior decades), with growth of just 1% annually over the past decade. Yet while real capital accumulation in the U.S. has weakened, corporate profit margins have never been higher.
- In an economy where wages and salaries are depressed, but government transfer payments and increasing household debt allow households to bridge the gap and consume beyond their incomes, companies can sell their output without being constrained by the fact that households can’t actually afford it out of the labor income they earn. Meanwhile, our trading partners are more than happy to pursue mercantilist-like policies; exporting cheap foreign goods to U.S. consumers, and recycling the income by lending it back to the U.S. in order to finance that consumption.
- Debt-financed consumption, while it proceeds unhindered, is a central driver of elevated corporate profits. Unusually elevated corporate profits (a surplus) are largely a mirror image of unusually large deficits in the household and government sectors.
- The most reliable stock market valuation measures (i.e. the measures that have a nearly 90% correlation with actual subsequent stock market returns) are those that explicitly take account of the level of profit margins and mute the impact of that variability. These measures suggest that the S&P 500 Index is likely to be lower a decade from now than it is today (though dividend income should bring the total return to about 1.5% annually).
- Even if the Federal Reserve was to immediately reduce the monetary base by one-third (from nearly 24 cents of monetary base per dollar of GDP to a smaller 16 cents of monetary base per dollar of GDP), short term interest rates would still be zero.
- Once we account for movements in the Federal funds rate that can be captured by a fairly simple linear policy rule such as the Taylor Rule, additional activist monetary policy (deviations from that rule) have effectively no ability to explain subsequent changes in GDP or employment. There is a strong economic justification for proposals that would require the Fed to outline Taylor-type policy guidelines, and to explain deviations from those guidelines. These proposals should be advocated by Republicans and Democrats alike.
- Yield-seeking speculation promoted by the Federal Reserve caused the housing bubble and the resulting global financial crisis. A change in accounting rules by the Financial Accounting Standards Board in March 2009, not extraordinary monetary policy, is what ended that crisis.
- The true Phillips Curve is a relationship between unemployment and real wage inflation, it cannot be usefully exploited by monetary policy, and it is the only version of the Phillips Curve that actually exists in empirical data. Pursuing general price inflation does not somehow “buy” more jobs. It also does not raise real wages. It lowers them.
What raises both real wages and employment simultaneously is economic policy that focuses on productive investment – both public and private; on education; on incentivizing local investment and employment and discouraging outsourcing that hollows out middle class jobs in preference for cheap foreign labor; on international economic accords that harmonize corporate taxes, discourage corporate tax dodging and beggar-thy-neighbor monetary policies, and provide for offsetting penalties, import tariffs and export subsidies when those accords are violated. What our nation needs most is to adopt fiscal policies that direct our seed corn to productive soil, and to reject increasingly arbitrary monetary policies that encourage the nation to focus on what is paper instead of what is real.
Introduction
One of the central policy errors since the global financial crisis, and indeed since the collapse of the technology bubble after the 2000 market peak, has been the notion that economic problems caused by financial crisis must be fixed by financial means; monetary policy in particular. Unfortunately, this line of thinking has progressively weakened the U.S. economy, making it increasingly dependent on debt, encouraging the diversion of scarce savings to speculative purposes, promoting beggar-thy-neighbor monetary policies abroad that encourage the substitution of domestic jobs for cheaper foreign labor, and creating what is now the third U.S. equity valuation bubble in 15 years.
What we demonstrate below is this. The U.S. has become a nation preoccupied with consumption over investment; outsourcing its jobs, hollowing out its middle class, and accumulating increasing debt burdens to do so. Making our country stronger will require us to turn our backs on paper monetary fixes that discourage saving while promoting speculation and debt-financed consumption. It will also require us to turn toward policies that encourage productive investment – public (e.g. infrastructure), private (e.g. capital investment and R&D), and personal (e.g. education). The good news is that these policy options are within reach if we are enlightened enough to choose them.
Read the rest of John Hussman’s paper
Companies moved because it was cheaper to operate overseas; all your bullets are wasted until you solve that problem. Good-bye.
Robert , your just as greedy as everyone who moved their companies overseas. So lets drop the holiest of them all shit and just admit in the quest for profit you would do the same.Now wouldn’t you do the same ?
Robert is absolutely right. But it was not just cheaper, it was more profitable. Many businesses could not make money operating in the US, so they had to move or die.
It was also harder to operate in the US – lots of regs, rules, issues.
The tax system was also difficult, and the corporate tax rate was out of proportion.
Americans wanted “cheap” goods, and that is what they got.
And now they still want “cheap goods”, but they also in great part hate the people that are providing them the cheap goods. They do not realize they are the creators of their own demise. Buy American made was not on their agenda.
bb – people are in business for profit. If someone can run a business profitably in China, then that is what they will do. Capitalism is not a political system – it is an economic one. Businesses and capital will flow where the return is greatest.
It is not about greedy. “Greedy” is your means of insulting someone. It is about profit.
The fact is that the circumstances are better for making profit elsewhere in many cases. So capital flows to where it can be best used and provide the best return.
The cost of unskilled labor in the US is still far too high to be world competitive. So unskilled jobs will flow to where the cost is lower. The cost of non-labor components of business are still too high in the US, so business will flow to where the cost is less. The tax regs and burden are still too high, so business will avoid those burdens and costs.
It is what capitalism is all about. It is why capitalism is so effective – it minimizes cost by rewarding those who minimize costs. Costs go down, production and efficiency go up, and there is enormous benefit to society as a result.
The US no longer rewards capitalism as it once did, so businesses will continue to seek out more agreeable locales.
You make it sound like a bad thing, or it is evil. It is not. It is simply what it is. Capitalism is amoral. It rewards good performance, and punishes bad.
The US has set up a system where it no longer rewards good performance. And the system got out of balance re the true price and value of labor – unskilled workers priced themselves out of the market.
Just because people want a high standard of living, does not mean they deserve it, or are earning it. Capitalism and the free market will tell them what their actual value is.
And it is busy telling them that they are trying to sell their labor for too much, especially in combination with the absurd governmental rules and regs.
I hate taxes. But that said, the article was let us say … incomplete.
Australia guarantees bank deposits to $250k. The proposed tax is meant to cover the cost of that insurance.
It is of course bullshit – it is of course a general revenue tax. The US charges for FDIC too by memory.
Govts everywhere are desperate for revenue. There will be less and less ability to hide, as they need to stuff their gaping maws.
Llpoh, let me ask you two questions. Do you totally not believe countries should have the ability to do what’s right for their citizens? Do you believe corporations are supreme to our nation? Try to answer those without dodging.
Star, not sure where you are coming from.
As my handle suggests, I believe in the right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. Countries should not infringe on any of those things. Thus, I do not believe that countries have the unfettered right to do what they think is best for its citizens. That is what a republic is meant to do – protect individual rights from the masses. Countries should not intrude into the lives of its citizens. The road to hell is paved withgood intentions and all that.
And who is “the country”? Is it the masses? Is it the government? Agencies? Who decides what is good?
Nope, by and large countries should not be making decisions like that. Those decisions destroy individual liberty.
Re corps, they are a vehicle that allows for individuals to invest as a group and avoid individual liability for debts, etc Without that protection, the economy would drain of capital.
Corps are private property. They should be treated as such, no more and no less. They need to follow the laws. And laws should not infringe upon them save re issues of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Again, what is a nation? The people? The set of ideals in the Constitution?
Corps, as with people, should be left the hell alone. If they want to move overseas, then that is their right, and no laws should be inacted to try to coerce them otherwise. They are private property and need to be left the hell alone if they are not impinging on the rights of others.
So, to more directly answer your question, they are private property, and should be protected as such. Some restrictions are necessary to protect the rights of others, but otherwise they should be left the hell alone. It is not a matter of them being supreme, but rather as private property, in a republic, the individual has rights which extend to his property.
The US is in the mess it is because of all the “trying to do what is right for the people” bullshit. Hey, let’s end poverty! Uh-oh. Hey, the people need defending – lets invade Iraq! Hey, they need healthcare – here is serving of Obamacare, that will do the trick! Hey, how about some SS, some EPA, some eminent domain, some income tax, by golly! Y’all need some help!
They have helped us to death.
Star – I wrote a long answer, and do not know where it went. Maybe it will appear again.
Anyway, no I do not believe that countries should have the ability to do what is right for their citizens. I believe in the basic rights of life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. The government is there to protect those basic rights, and to do not another damn thing, AT ALL. I will take care of the rest, thanks very much. That is what a republic is all about – securing the right of the individual from being abridged by the majority. And any attempt to what is right by the people will invariably fuck someone out of their rights.
Re corps – as corps are private property, the nation should be affording them protection. They should not be screwed with. The owners should have the right to come and go with their property as they see fit, to move them overseas, to close them down, to pay whatever rates the market will dictate, etc. No laws on corps should be placed save to protect the basic rights (llpoh, remember?) of others. Otherwise, they should be left alone. Some rules and regs are needed, but not nearly what are currently in place. For instance, requiring a corp to provide health insurance is horseshit. It is private property, and is akin to mandating that property owners provide health care to tenants.
Re corps being supreme, I do not believe they are. They via their owners wield enormous influence, owing to the de facto corruption of politicians.
You try really hard to muddy this every time I ask. Do you believe in borders? Do you believe corporations operating overseas and not paying any of the costs of OUR society have some sort of nigger “right” to access our mankets? Where does that “right” come from?
Llpoj our disagreements all involve borders. Don’t waste your time on anything else, because we agree pretty much 100% on everything within the borders of the US. Your inability to grasp the difference between the two subjects baffles me.
I don’t care if companies move to china. Really, fine with me. Let them try to turn a profit selling iphones to their slave workers in china. If they want to ship product back here, I have no problem with the taxman meeting them right at the port and hitting them hard. Make the bed, sleep in yhe bed
I believe citizens have the right to leave. And take their property with them
Countries can close their borders to entry. But should not to exit.
Corps overseas have no obligations to pay US costs of any kind. The US can ban imports if it sees fit. If they want to buy, buy. If not, not.
But the same works in reverse. The US sells around $1 trillion overseas. Trade wars hurt, and will not help the US.
You are out of your mind you think you can successfully demand overseas corps to pay for the cost of US society.
It is trade – buy and sell. Simple as that. The US can enact barriers. It would be stupid as hell and would make things far worse – it would instantly reduce exports, and there would not be ready replacement for imports. Plus it would doom the US to being inefficient in world terms.
So, do you propose protectionism? Or do you propose stripping property rights from owners?
What the hell are you saying? Hard to tell.
Sorry, missed the one where you own up to being a protectionist.
As I said, the pain will be more acute here than elsewhere. Plus the problem with protectionism is that it ALWAYS leads to inferior quality and poor performance and productivity. You see, it subverts the reward/penalty structure of capitalism, and causes it to lose its benefits.
The answer is that theUS has to compete better. Labor has to be cheaper, output greater, and efficiency needs to improve, and govt regs need to fall.
Hiding will not work. Try that and one day theUS will be a second world nation, as the rest keep motoring along.
There are myriad problems, but these two are in my mind the biggest.
First, the welfare state pays people not to work.
Second, workers have become accustomed to lifestyles that they cannot earn in an open market. They do not produce enough to justify their costs.
Both of these have to change. Take away the welfare state, and prices will have to fall. If prices and wages fall, the US will become more world competitive.
Delaying this will only allow the competition to further close the gap, and more US businesses will close or relocate during the delay.
The US needs to compete. But it is too afraid to do so.
Stop intertwining domestic and international issues. Like I said, 100% per cent on domestic stuff. No argument there, so stop arguing. I am absolutely protectionist. That seems to be distastful to you. Why? Do you operate in china? if you operate here, why wouldn’t you want to protect your investment? Can you compete with slaves?
BTW, you last post (myriad problems) is right on the money
Star – I have said it is because protectionism does not work. It results in inefficient industries, and bad quality, and will invariably result in bigger issues than the one that already exist. Protected industries may survive, but they do not thrive, as they are not subject to the continued heat of the competitive furnaces.
Yes, protectionism is distasteful to me. It is an admission that the US cannot compete.
The reason the US cannot compete is because of its welfare state, its poorly educated population, its over-paid unskilled employees, its over-regulated industry.
Protectionism is an effort to mask those issues rather than address them. If the US employees are worth $5 a day or $5 an hour or $500 an hour, that is what it is. No use trying to hide the truth behind tariffs and bans.
Embrace competition. It is the answer. The question is why cannot the US compete. The answers to that question are discussed here every day.
I lose business regularly to China. But I would not have my industry protected. We need to be good enough to compete, or we are truly doomed. Covering up the fuck-ups with tariffs will not make things better. The competition will get better, and leave the US further and further behind.
In any event, manufacturing is doomed. It will never again afford the middle class jobs as it did in the 50s/60/s/70s/80s. It will dwindle away as automation takes almost all the jobs.
The US needs to look to exporting what it has that is of extreme value. That will be agricultural products.
But whatever comes next, the US needs to get much better, much stronger and more able than it currently is. Hiding away will not accomplish that.
Star – we are not far apart in what we see and believe. That is often the case on TBP – and believe it or not is cause for some incendiary fights – whether it is 99.99 or 99.98 becomes quite heated at times.
I watched carefully while the Japs kicked our asses in the 1970s and 1980s. They were able to do it because the US automakers became so bloated, inefficient, and made cars of such poor quality that the Japs were able to overtake them. The US had a protected market, and costs soared, and the pain of that is still being felt. Quality fell – US cars of the 1970s were horrid.
Protectionism leads to that, in my opinion. It makes the protected soft.
I don’t think tarriffs are hiding. And I think the idea that protectionism leads to bad things is mindless drivel, not supported by any facts. Your resentment of labor must mean you are in a union state. I have a buddy who’s shop is in illinois, and his feelings and opinions about labor are very similar to yours. Florida is not that bad. If someone isn’t right, sayanara, bitch. I can send them packing.
Llpoh, back to your myriad problems post for a second. Your get out of dodge piece was a big hit. If you stay away from the international stuff, there is a killer essay sketched out in those 5 paragraphs. The clarity is stunningly good. And noone is brave enough to lay that out. Flesh that out. That’s really good. And I”m no fluffer
Thanks Z.
Star – as I said, look at the cars from the 70s. To call them junk is an insult to junk.
If you screw with capitalism and mess with the reward for good performance and pain for bad scenario, then it stops working. My observations from 40 years in manufacturing. The US is currently feeling the pain from the bad performance. Which it rightly deserves.
Star – Thanks for the kind words. I will take it on board.
Zara, pretty funny. that yacht is the SMALL chrysler.
I love that commercial. The “small car” that has a hood longer than a fiat, and takes those semi-hairpin turns at a mind numbing 20 mph, exactly as you would expect a performance car to do.
I miss teh 70’s.
starfker, Genuine Corinthian leather, bitch.
A lot of the car problems the US had in the 70’s had two origins. One, the concept of planned obsolescence. The idea that if something fell apart in due time, you would have to buy another one. The other, and llpoh, I’m sure you are familiar with this, is the ability to take what you learn and start fresh. US automakers had old infrastructure to build around, whereas in japan they were starting eith a clean piece of paper.
Starfcker, the idea of planned obsolescence in the auto industry goes back to the 1930’s. Cars were only designed to last a few years and people were motivated to buy a new one due to styling changes, never mind that the engines and other main parts seldom changed.
The Japanese are a different breed. They thrive on quality and the latest technology. They are fucked up in their own way, having worked for them, but they never, ever turn out a mediocre product on purpose.
I remember driving thru the desert in one of those land yachts with my dad, his right foot planted. You could hardly glimpse the road as the front end pointed skyward such were the aerodynamics. The gas gauge needle could be seen moving from full to empty – gallons per mile not miles per gallon at the speed we were going.
Lucky we survived. What a rush.
Llpoh, re-read hussman above. He pretty much comes to the same conclusions I do. Matter of fact he goes further, and thinks there are times export subsidies would be appropriate. Nothing wrong with protecting what’s yours. I see it as highly desirable. No stupid policy is inevitable. We can choose better
“I don’t think tarriffs are hiding. And I think the idea that protectionism leads to bad things is mindless drivel, not supported by any facts.” ———— starfcker
How can you say that? Where is YOUR proof that protectionism works?
Hey, I love the theory, in general. “To protect” …. who doesn’t love that idea? We protect ourselves and our loved ones. Why not protect our jobs and economy? Problem with that is that it’s a TWO-way street. Works great if your country is the only one doing the protecting. It turns into a disaster when the other countries play the same game. The evidence for that, my friend, is overwhelming.
Let me point you (below) to a succinct and well written article written in 1986 titled, “Protectionism and the Destruction of Prosperity”. It’s a 6 page PDF, but as stated, it is clearly written and easy to understand with great examples … and as an added bonus NO CHARTS, or techno-babble speak.
It’s also posted on a very good source … Mises Institute.
.
https://mises.org/sites/default/files/Protectionism%20and%20the%20Destruction%20of%20Prosperity_2.pdf
.
llpoh/starfcker …. let me add this has been a very informative and helpful discussion ……. and without the normal shit-flinging. Eureka!!!
“As we unravel the tangled web of protectionist argument, we should keep our eye on two essential points: (1) protectionism means force in restraint of trade; and (2) the key is what happens to the consumer. Invariably, we will find that the protectionists are out to cripple, exploit, and impose severe losses not only on foreign consumers but especially on Americans. And since each and every one of us is a consumer, this means that protectionism is out to mulct all of us for the benefit of a specially privileged, subsidized few—and an inefficient few at that: people who cannot make it in a free and
unhampered market.”
“Protectionism is simply a plea that consumers, as well as general prosperity, be hurt so as to confer permanent special privilege upon groups of less efficient producers, at the expense of more competent firms and of consumers. But it is a peculiarly destructive kind of bailout, because it permanently shackles trade under the cloak of patriotism.”
“Whenever someone starts talking about “fair competition” or indeed, about “fairness” in general, it is time to keep a sharp eye on your wallet, for it is about to be picked. For the genuinely “fair” is simply the voluntary terms of exchange, mutually agreed upon by buyer and seller. As most of the medieval scholastics were able to figure out, there is no “just” (or “fair”) price outside of the market price.”
.
Above quotes from the Mises link.
Stucky, fuck the mises institute. They just stole mises’ name and use it to support offshoring. They are very clever, they almost appear nationalist except for that one glass of hemlock they want you to drink. Pry the scales off your eyes. How do you think we got where we are?
You hear about all these offshore profits companies are dying to repatriate. Funny how they use a word rooted off the word patriot. Read hussman again. Key words- income replacement. Those offshore profits should have been the wages of americans. And you and I are paying the cost o the welfare state to replace that income f
(2) the key is what happens to the consumer. Bullshit. That sentence is the entire construct clintonomics/fuck america/let’s be oligarchs is built on. I don’t care if trayvon can’t afford a 50 inch plasma. Let him get a fucking job if he wants one. Oh, that’s right, he can’t get a job, because the jobs are in china so a 50 inch is cheap enough he can buy it with the cash portion of his snap card. Fuck that.
“How do you think we got where we are?” ———– starfcker
That would be a very long list with many actors. Please, for the love of Holy Economics, do not blame it on the lack of protectionism.
You say “fuck the mises institute”. Do you have a stronger argument?
starfcker
It’s a purely academic discussion at any rate. You’re pissing up a rope if you think Protectionism will ever be implemented by the USA. It’s a Global Supply chain, baby. Here comes the Trans-Pacific Partnership!
I’m not so sure about that, stuck. Remember when bush’s open border bill was a done deal in 2006? And 2007. And 2012. There are people in congress with an adversion to rope. Not just the mises institute, but the entire media/think tank/foundation structure operates with one goal, to obfuscate the offshoring issue at any cost, because slavery is where the real money is made
Automation, demographics, tax code, blah, blah, fucking blah. No. If you don’t have to pay wages, and you can access the american market, which is priced for competitive businesses that pay wages, well guess what. Scarred old slaver, you are the winner
And stucky, I’m a mo-ron. Ok. I’m cool with that. But is hussman dumb?
Capitalism is one thing, speculative finance capitalism another, or so think I. I’m a Pat Buchanan fan, agree with him (and Robert Prechter) that the gutting of US manufacturing capability was a possibly fatal error. That said, I live in a country with highly protectionist policies and they have proven a disaster. Will this still be true when the new multilateral financial architecture is in place? I think so, because to obtain hard currency, reforms will be demanded, be it by the IMF, the BRICS development bank or what have you. Once that takes place, domestic industry will be buried by lower-priced foreign competition, just as llpoh points out. I share Star’s sentiments to a great degree, but that’s the heart not the head talking. Protectionism can work in he nascent stage of national industrial development, but once it’s matured, it’s every man for himself, like it or not. And the inefficient don’t like it at all.
Get gov out of the way and the cream will rise to the top.
“But is hussman dumb?” —– starfcker
I have no idea. I never entirely read any of the articles posted here … just a quick scan, at best. The tone of his articles lead me to believe he thinks he’s “the smartest guy in the room”. I find his articles a tedious slog. He takes 1,000 words to convey ideas better served with 100 words. He drones on and on and on to get to his point.
Hussman isn’t God. He has his fair share of critics, such as this article — “Hussman’s Returns, Like His Forecasts, Are Dismal: Analysis”
http://www.thinkadvisor.com/2014/12/01/hussmans-returns-like-his-forecasts-are-dismal-ana
Are 99% of the chincs effectively slaves?
@otto
This site is a fine place to exchange ideas and many commenters make interesting points, but PLEEEZE learn proper usage of the English language! If you wish to use slurs, at least learn how they’re spelled! It’s be “Chinks” not “chincs”! Damn, man, learn a bit!
And no, 99% are not “effectively slaves” (I use the more sensible European method of punctuation with quotes by the way), although many have become lumpen thanks to industrialization. Chinese culture is well worthy of study, because in case you haven’t noticed, the Chinese are kicking butt when compared with decadent Europeans and their American cousins: I’m both of the latter and can see the handwriting on the wall, properly spelled and all.
Robert , wasn’t trying to insult you.Just trying to provoke. Big difference.
Anonymous was bb again
Are the Chineese kicking butt becuse a select, unelected group have a totalitarian grip on every lever of power? Far beyond anything most of Europe has experienced in centuries. Your not trying to sell me a ride on the New Silk Road, are ya?
I still think its a nation of slaves, unless you have something else.
@Otto
No, I’m not selling anything. You’re (note spelling: “you’re” is the contraction for “you are”; “your” is a possessive pronoun) assuming that any central power, however strong, can actually enslave a truly vast population, an assumption that defies logic. The Chinese political system is dreadful and one under which I wouldn’t wish to live, but to overgeneralize with respect to its power is to underestimate the people presently oppressed by it. The Chinese are by and large an intelligent and industrious race, as a study of Joseph Needham’s multi-volume study “Science and Civliization in China” amply demonstrates. The present totalitarian government wastes no time, effort or funds on the nonsense that seems to be the great concern of Western governments, concentrating instead on advancing its agenda beyond its borders through carefully crafted economic measures rather than the clumsy miltary adventurism of the decadent West.
“Slaves” are unwilling servitors: servitude by choice is another matter entirely.
LLpoh – Would agree with you on American agriculture but for the way the factory farms produce their slowly poisonous “food”, different types of which are not allowed into various countries around the world because the pesticides are GMOs are banned there (for good reason IMO).
This will prove a problem for the U.S. unless the TPPA and other world trade agreements are crammed down all out the world’s collective throat (and that seems to be the case). If that happens we are back to Starfcker’s point regarding corporations and trade:
It will be against the effective “law” (the trade agreements) for any country to forbid a corporation (in bed with Monsanto type corporate farm) from importing its poisonous food into that country and selling it to the local population (without accurate labels I might add). All part of Agenda 21…
The only reason it’s good for any very wealthy individual, industry, or corporation to outsource jobs is because the federal reserve has made it so. No one could profit from anything if it wasn’t the Fed’s doing. Because of the Fed, profits aren’t based on economic fundamentals as they should be so most if not ALL profits are based on ARTIFICIAL Fed life support.
Profits based on artificial anything will eventually (sooner perhaps) not be sustainable because of many other serious factors.
Economic fundamentals are all that matter. Anything else only results in a economic train wreck – period,
Monte- “servitude by choice is another matter entirely” agreed but what choice do they have? Serve or….what? I am presently aware that China is an ancient culture with many contributions to global society, but here and now, they appear to be a sprawling mass of enslaved humanity ruled by totalitarian oligarchs, the envy of oligarchs the world over.
Why, we as Free Men have immolated our industry to support ‘chinc’ oligarchs, running slaves with environmental abandon, enriching ‘western’ oligarchs is beyond me.
How has Germany managed to retain a sizable chunk of their industrial power? Protectionism?
I am not advocating strong tariffs and the like to ‘protect’ American Industry, rather as Free Men we should be more responsible with our dollars spent.
We should not be giving our dollars to uber polluting slave masters. It is up to each of us to spend them where it counts.
I still have not seen significant accounting/refuting of my original ‘shit built by slaves’ hypothesis….