Outsourcing Bonanza: Vietnamese Trade Normalization - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

unlawflcombatnt · 12-13-2006, 02:57 AM

On Friday, December 8th, the House of Representatives passed H.R. 6406, by a vote of 212-184 This bill allows for "normalization" of trade with Vietnam.

This new "permanent normalization of trade relations" (PNTR) with Vietnam is the first step in opening up their labor market to exploitation by Corporate America and to the outsourcing of American jobs to Vietnam.

What are the relative "benefits" to the United States? It allegedly opens up the Vietnamese "consumer" market to American goods. However, the benefit of such market opening is minuscule. The exchange traded value of Vietnam's entire GDP is only $43 billion. (See Vietnam: CIA assessment ) This is approximately 3/100ths of a percent of U.S. GDP. To put it another way, if Vietnam's entire GDP was spent on American imports, it would raise U.S. GDP .03%. So a U.S. GDP growth of 2.20% would rise to 2.23%. Again, this is assuming ALL of Vietnam's GDP was spent on American goods, which is certainly not going to happen. Vietnam's Exchange Rate per capita GDP is only $521/year. {Vietnam's Purchasing Power Parity (PPP) per capita GDP is listed as $2800. By converting this to an exchange rate value this becomes a per capita income of only $521/year. It's the Exchange Rate income that is important here, because this measures the ability to purchase American imports.} Given these numbers it's very unlikely that we can sell significant U.S production to Vietnamese consumers.

What's the downside? Vietnam has a labor force of 43 million workers. Once Vietnam is opened up to investment by Corporate America, this could become a virtual addition of 43 million workers to America's 152 million participating labor force. If Corporate America replaced 43 million American workers ( averaging $17/hour ) with 43 million Vietnamese workers, it would reduce American labor & consumer income by $1.52 trillion.

(43 million X $17/hr. X 8 hrs./day X 365 days/yr. X 5 days/wk divided by 7 days/week = $1.52 trillion. )

This would also reduce American consumer spending power by $1.52 trillion dollars. A decline in consumer spending by that $1.52 trillion, subtracted directly from our $13 trillion GDP, would amount to a direct decline in our GDP of almost 12%. (Applying any multiplier would drop our GDP far more than 12%) Of course, we could "gain" that whopping 0.03% in GDP from selling our exports to Vietnam.

These are theoretical calculations only, designed to show the magnitude of relative benefits vs. costs to Americans from "normalization" of trade with Vietnam. While Corporate America is not likely to hire all 43 million Vietnamese workers, it's clear that the potential loss to our economy is much greater than the potential gain. We'll gain an almost non-existent consumer market from Vietnam, while adding a virtual 43 million workers to America's labor pool. And the direct loss of jobs is only the measurable effect. The decline in American wages from the supply & demand effect of competition with another 43 million impoverished workers hasn't been calculated. Clearly this would decrease American wages and labor income MUCH more than just $1.52 trillion.

To the majority of Americans, permanent normalization of trade with Vietnam is exclusively negative. Once again, it'll put American workers (and their wages) in direct competition with impoverished 3rd world workers.

Clearly the goal here is not to open up the Vietnamese consumer market to American goods. The goal is to open up the Vietnamese labor market to American Multinational Corporations. The true goal is to replace even more American workers with easily exploitable semi-slave laborers of another impoverished country. It'll be another disaster for American workers, and another windfall profit gain for rich Globalist Corporations.

unlawflcombatnt

Economic Populist Forum

EconomicPopulistCommentary

_________________
The economy needs balance between the "means of production" & "means of consumption."

The_Jazz · 12-13-2006, 05:45 AM

I have to respectfully disagree. The American companies that are most likely to benefit from this change are manufacturers of consumer goods, like auto makers, electronics and other durable goods.

You're worried about 43 million Vietnamese potentially competing for American jobs when there are 400 million Chinese workers and 300 million Indian actively seeking those jobs already? By the way, the Chinese posted a $20 BILLION trade surplus with us recently, and that my friend is the cold, hard truth of job exportation. In light of those two facts, your post sounds more like an anti-Vietnamese rant than anything that addresses the export of American jobs.

unlawflcombatnt · 12-13-2006, 07:39 PM

Vietnamese workers are poorer than Chinese workers, and much poorer than Indian workers. They'll add an additional source of ultra-cheap, easily exploitable labor for Corporate America. It'll be just that much more low-wage competition for American workers resulting in further wage declines.

unlawflcombatnt

Economic Populist Forum

EconomicPopulistCommentary

_________________
The economy needs balance between the "means of production" & "means of consumption."

mixedmedia · 12-13-2006, 10:05 PM

So, what? Is it better that the Vietnamese remain impoverished? The world is growing smaller. Americans just may have to accept that the dynamics of the global economy are changing and get used to the competition. It has to happen. We cannot afford to let entire nations of people dwindle in economic isolation any longer. No matter how you slice it, more jobs in Vietnam is good for the Vietnamese. And as their economic conditions start to improve, so will their technology, education, healthcare and infrastructure, to name a few. And as a result, their workers will become more skilled and flexible and earn better wages, open their own businesses, invent their own unique commodities and services, and join with us in the world economy with the hopes of more opportunity for their children than their own parents ever dreamed possible. Just as it is happening in India and China.

Now, I'm not being all Pollyanna-like and asserting that there will be no growing pains or conditions for opportunism and corruption, as there is always, just that I cannot, for the life of me, understand why someone believes that the overall good for people who are struggling to survive is less important than their grudge against "multi-nationals." It is a catch-22 situation for us all, as those multi-national corporations who are benefitting from the current influx of cheap labor in our traditionally disadvantaged neighbors in the world, they are also enabling them to become better paid, better educated, better informed and, as a result, more demanding as workers and less of an advantage to them. I know if I have considered this certainly so have forecasters in the "multi-nationals."

Oh, and more demanding workers will also mean more demanding citizens who will feel more enabled to protect their communities from environmental exploitation and contamination.

It goes on and on. I'm sure I could come up with more if it weren't so late.....

unlawflcombatnt · 12-14-2006, 10:28 AM

Trade policies of any nation are designed to better that nation itself. The doctrine of Comparative Advantage requires that both nations benefit and that trade increases total GDP in both countries. That is not what has been happening with U.S. trade policy. The increase in GDP and general betterment has occured exclusively in the 3rd world country (if at all), while reducing it in the United States.

In the case of NAFTA, trade with the U.S. has made most Mexicans poorer, as well as costing 4 million American jobs. The only people benefitting from this outsourcing are the multinational Corporations, who've increased their profits by reducing labor costs.

The goal of American trade policy has historically been to improve the American economy. If we want to help Vietnam, it should be through direct foreign aid to Vietnam and Vietnamese-owned businesses, not by giving assistance to American business & Corporations who want to substitute Vietnamese workers for American workers to lower their own costs of production for American markets.

unlawflcombatnt

Economic Populist Forum

EconomicPopulistCommentary

_________________
The economy needs balance between the "means of production" & "means of consumption."

mixedmedia · 12-14-2006, 05:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by unlawflcombatnt

Trade policies of any nation are designed to better that nation itself. The doctrine of Comparative Advantage requires that both nations benefit and that trade increases total GDP in both countries. That is not what has been happening with U.S. trade policy. The increase in GDP and general betterment has occured exclusively in the 3rd world country (if at all), while reducing it in the United States.

I don't have a problem with this. Gross financial inequity is as unjust on a global scale as it is on a solely American economic scale. Please don't get me wrong, I am not in favor of giving multinationals free reign over the third world. What I do believe is that the best way to usher disadvantaged nations into the global economic fold is by giving people jobs - something to lose. That is how it will start. It's been a while since I read anything about Mexico, but I think it is far too soon to be calling NAFTA either a success or a failure and most of what you read about it at this point is usually presented with a pro or con agenda. Yes, I am aware that many Mexicans in agriculture are struggling and have not benefitted from NAFTA. But millions of workers have gotten jobs that were not there before. And if I remember correctly, Mexico's GDP quadrupled within ten years of its enactment. I could be wrong about that, correct me if so.

Quote:

In the case of NAFTA, trade with the U.S. has made most Mexicans poorer, as well as costing 4 million American jobs. The only people benefitting from this outsourcing are the multinational Corporations, who've increased their profits by reducing labor costs.

It has made some Mexicans poorer and has benefitted some Mexicans. Again, I think anyone who is/was expecting to draw final conclusions from NAFTA's success or failure within 15 years is relying on pre-conceived biases.

Quote:

The goal of American trade policy has historically been to improve the American economy. If we want to help Vietnam, it should be through direct foreign aid to Vietnam and Vietnamese-owned businesses, not by giving assistance to American business & Corporations who want to substitute Vietnamese workers for American workers to lower their own costs of production for American markets.

1) I think the historic goals of American trade policy are history.

2) The only way Vietnamese-owned businesses are going to stake a claim in the global economy is by having a sound and secure Vietnamese economy to back them up. Giving aid to Vietnamese business owners is a great idea, but what we really need to do is foster an environment where more Vietnamese have the opportunity to go into business. You cannot accomplish this with aid alone.

3) I strongly believe that America's conception of herself as an untarnishable superpower is going to change, has to change, will change whether we like it or not and ultimately I think that is a good thing.

guyy · 12-14-2006, 09:35 PM

This casts a slightly different light on the Ol' Vietnam War, doesn't it?

In 1975, the last US agents leave the roof of the embassy in Ho Chi Minh City. Some 10 or so years later, Gorby and Ronnie become chummy. By the 14 year mark, in 1989, the Cold War ends. (So much for the domino theory!) Some 30 years later, Richard Nixon's ideological scions are finalising an agreement with Ho Chi Minh's political heirs which fully integrates Vietnam into the networks of global capitalism. (n.b. It is already fairly well integrated. Plenty of stuff In Stores Now!!! is Made in Vietnam.)

The_Jazz · 12-15-2006, 06:02 AM

Am I the only one who finds it odd that the OP is citing himself as a source here? Maybe I'm missing something, but all of his links are to his blog.

mixedmedia · 12-15-2006, 06:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Jazz

Am I the only one who finds it odd that the OP is citing himself as a source here? Maybe I'm missing something, but all of his links are to his blog.

Yes, I did notice this and what's more the color pallette on his forum singed my corneas. Thanks a lot, dude.

Nimetic · 12-16-2006, 08:41 PM

But what is the alternative.

Would you prefer Vietnam to be "isolated". Their only friends other US enemies pehaps? Maybe they could sell rice to North Korea in exchange for technology, or cashews to Iran in exchange for oil. Maybe the US could cut trade with Russia too yes?

Any scenario that I think of is worse than them exporting a clothes.

But it's all beside the point. Vietnam is already trading, within asiapac and with Europe.

unlawflcombatnt · 12-16-2006, 11:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nimetic

Maybe they could sell rice to North Korea in exchange for technology, or cashews to Iran in exchange for oil.

Or maybe they could put 10-20 million Americans out of work by taking the few manufacturing jobs we have left in this country, while driving down American wages even more than global outsourcing has already done.

unlawflcombatnt

Economic Populist Forum

EconomicPopulistCommentary

_________________
The economy needs balance between the "means of production" & "means of consumption."

roachboy · 12-18-2006, 02:27 PM

welcome to the brave new world of globalizing capitalism, now almost 40 years old...where have you been?
you are just noticing?
wake up.

you know, globalization: conditioned by the transnational trade in stock (since the early 1970s) so that the idea of a nationally-specific corporate entity means nothing, has meant nothing; real-time financial flows that have for years been redrawing the political geography of capitalism away from its old-fashioned, outmoded emphasis on nation-states, any illusion of democratic redress, any meaningful requirement for or interest in social stability...you know, globalizing capitalism, which unfolds in a special, separate dimension severed from the social, severed from the political, which is like the weather, which blows this way and that leaving all of us in a position of having-to-adapt.....because how do you complain about the weather? how do you organize to oppose changes in the forces of Nature?

globalization, which is enabled by a neoliberal ideological framework that sees maximization of corporate profits as a necessary good regardless of the social consequences--a bankrupt horrorshow ideology that still somehow twitches on television sets across america, even as corporate sector after corporate sector back away from it as being suicidal for business...but one that has the advantage of depoliticizing the consequences of reorganization and of enabling the holders of capital to extract maximum short term profits that they will no doubt need to reinforce their gated communities and to hire private militias once the neo-feudal order that is the logical consequence of neoliberalism comes into full, fetid blossom...

globalization that is enabled by the development of the internet we communicate across, the computers that we like to pretend free us, the supply chain management technologies, real-time supply chain management, a highly rationalized transportation infrastructure that enables an internationalization of just-in-time systems...the commodity results of which you have been eating, dressing in, driving, listening to, watching for 20 years...

yes, all this has just started.
and clearly the problem is vietnam.

wake up.

Nimetic · 12-21-2006, 03:59 AM

You aren't clear here.

The manufacturing is/has mainly gone to Japan, Taiwan and China I expect. Vietnam is a mere mosquito compared to China + India. How much stuff do you buy from Vietnam (seriously). Probably not much.

In terms of trade, I was making some points. Show me that you understand at least two of them and we can converse more.

On the jobs front. Heck, I thought the US had that solved. Put a portion of the population in jail, employ another large portion as security (police and guards), put a portion in the military, and withdraw welfare from the rest.

Bingo. Low unemployment.

What is this subject 'popular economics'. Is this something like 'popular science'?

roachboy · 12-21-2006, 07:50 AM

nimetic: are you talking to me above?

Nimetic · 12-23-2006, 04:28 PM

No. And apologies, I got sorta annoyed at the original poster. I lost my cool for a moment - which is not polite, and which does not put a reasonable or logical case.

To unlawflcombatant, I apologize for my tone. With respect, I disagree with your point. My understanding of the US is that it has benefitted from being a strong trading nation. Perhaps I am wrong, but that is the situation as I understand it.

For what it's worth, we face similar issues AU, we are relatively self sufficient with fuel (oil-gas-uranium-coal), food, minerals and technology. Due to increased pressure from Asia, our car manufacturers periodically struggle however, our IT workers are more inept each day and are being supplemented by overseas labour (working here on Visas in many cases).

Despite this, I don't think that isolationism nor protectionism (in it's extreme form) is an answer.

12-13-2006, 02:57 AM	#1 (permalink)
unlawflcombatnt Upright Location: California	Outsourcing Bonanza: Vietnamese Trade Normalization On Friday, December 8th, the House of Representatives passed H.R. 6406, by a vote of 212-184 This bill allows for "normalization" of trade with Vietnam. This new "permanent normalization of trade relations" (PNTR) with Vietnam is the first step in opening up their labor market to exploitation by Corporate America and to the outsourcing of American jobs to Vietnam. What are the relative "benefits" to the United States? It allegedly opens up the Vietnamese "consumer" market to American goods. However, the benefit of such market opening is minuscule. The exchange traded value of Vietnam's entire GDP is only $43 billion. (See Vietnam: CIA assessment ) This is approximately 3/100ths of a percent of U.S. GDP. To put it another way, if Vietnam's entire GDP was spent on American imports, it would raise U.S. GDP .03%. So a U.S. GDP growth of 2.20% would rise to 2.23%. Again, this is assuming ALL of Vietnam's GDP was spent on American goods, which is certainly not going to happen. Vietnam's Exchange Rate per capita GDP is only $521/year. {Vietnam's Purchasing Power Parity (PPP) per capita GDP is listed as $2800. By converting this to an exchange rate value this becomes a per capita income of only $521/year. It's the Exchange Rate income that is important here, because this measures the ability to purchase American imports.} Given these numbers it's very unlikely that we can sell significant U.S production to Vietnamese consumers. What's the downside? Vietnam has a labor force of 43 million workers. Once Vietnam is opened up to investment by Corporate America, this could become a virtual addition of 43 million workers to America's 152 million participating labor force. If Corporate America replaced 43 million American workers ( averaging $17/hour ) with 43 million Vietnamese workers, it would reduce American labor & consumer income by $1.52 trillion. (43 million X $17/hr. X 8 hrs./day X 365 days/yr. X 5 days/wk divided by 7 days/week = $1.52 trillion. ) This would also reduce American consumer spending power by $1.52 trillion dollars. A decline in consumer spending by that $1.52 trillion, subtracted directly from our $13 trillion GDP, would amount to a direct decline in our GDP of almost 12%. (Applying any multiplier would drop our GDP far more than 12%) Of course, we could "gain" that whopping 0.03% in GDP from selling our exports to Vietnam. These are theoretical calculations only, designed to show the magnitude of relative benefits vs. costs to Americans from "normalization" of trade with Vietnam. While Corporate America is not likely to hire all 43 million Vietnamese workers, it's clear that the potential loss to our economy is much greater than the potential gain. We'll gain an almost non-existent consumer market from Vietnam, while adding a virtual 43 million workers to America's labor pool. And the direct loss of jobs is only the measurable effect. The decline in American wages from the supply & demand effect of competition with another 43 million impoverished workers hasn't been calculated. Clearly this would decrease American wages and labor income MUCH more than just $1.52 trillion. To the majority of Americans, permanent normalization of trade with Vietnam is exclusively negative. Once again, it'll put American workers (and their wages) in direct competition with impoverished 3rd world workers. Clearly the goal here is not to open up the Vietnamese consumer market to American goods. The goal is to open up the Vietnamese labor market to American Multinational Corporations. The true goal is to replace even more American workers with easily exploitable semi-slave laborers of another impoverished country. It'll be another disaster for American workers, and another windfall profit gain for rich Globalist Corporations. unlawflcombatnt Economic Populist Forum EconomicPopulistCommentary _________________ The economy needs balance between the "means of production" & "means of consumption."

12-13-2006, 05:45 AM	#2 (permalink)
The_Jazz Asshole Administrator Location: Chicago	I have to respectfully disagree. The American companies that are most likely to benefit from this change are manufacturers of consumer goods, like auto makers, electronics and other durable goods. You're worried about 43 million Vietnamese potentially competing for American jobs when there are 400 million Chinese workers and 300 million Indian actively seeking those jobs already? By the way, the Chinese posted a $20 BILLION trade surplus with us recently, and that my friend is the cold, hard truth of job exportation. In light of those two facts, your post sounds more like an anti-Vietnamese rant than anything that addresses the export of American jobs. __________________ "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin "There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush "We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo

12-13-2006, 07:39 PM	#3 (permalink)
unlawflcombatnt Upright Location: California	Vietnamese Workers Vietnamese workers are poorer than Chinese workers, and much poorer than Indian workers. They'll add an additional source of ultra-cheap, easily exploitable labor for Corporate America. It'll be just that much more low-wage competition for American workers resulting in further wage declines. unlawflcombatnt Economic Populist Forum EconomicPopulistCommentary _________________ The economy needs balance between the "means of production" & "means of consumption."

12-13-2006, 10:05 PM	#4 (permalink)
mixedmedia has all her shots. Location: Florida	So, what? Is it better that the Vietnamese remain impoverished? The world is growing smaller. Americans just may have to accept that the dynamics of the global economy are changing and get used to the competition. It has to happen. We cannot afford to let entire nations of people dwindle in economic isolation any longer. No matter how you slice it, more jobs in Vietnam is good for the Vietnamese. And as their economic conditions start to improve, so will their technology, education, healthcare and infrastructure, to name a few. And as a result, their workers will become more skilled and flexible and earn better wages, open their own businesses, invent their own unique commodities and services, and join with us in the world economy with the hopes of more opportunity for their children than their own parents ever dreamed possible. Just as it is happening in India and China. Now, I'm not being all Pollyanna-like and asserting that there will be no growing pains or conditions for opportunism and corruption, as there is always, just that I cannot, for the life of me, understand why someone believes that the overall good for people who are struggling to survive is less important than their grudge against "multi-nationals." It is a catch-22 situation for us all, as those multi-national corporations who are benefitting from the current influx of cheap labor in our traditionally disadvantaged neighbors in the world, they are also enabling them to become better paid, better educated, better informed and, as a result, more demanding as workers and less of an advantage to them. I know if I have considered this certainly so have forecasters in the "multi-nationals." Oh, and more demanding workers will also mean more demanding citizens who will feel more enabled to protect their communities from environmental exploitation and contamination. It goes on and on. I'm sure I could come up with more if it weren't so late..... __________________ Most people go through life dreading they'll have a traumatic experience. Freaks were born with their trauma. They've already passed their test in life. They're aristocrats. - Diane Arbus PESSIMISM, n. A philosophy forced upon the convictions of the observer by the disheartening prevalence of the optimist with his scarecrow hope and his unsightly smile. - Ambrose Bierce

12-14-2006, 10:28 AM	#5 (permalink)
unlawflcombatnt Upright Location: California	Trade Trade policies of any nation are designed to better that nation itself. The doctrine of Comparative Advantage requires that both nations benefit and that trade increases total GDP in both countries. That is not what has been happening with U.S. trade policy. The increase in GDP and general betterment has occured exclusively in the 3rd world country (if at all), while reducing it in the United States. In the case of NAFTA, trade with the U.S. has made most Mexicans poorer, as well as costing 4 million American jobs. The only people benefitting from this outsourcing are the multinational Corporations, who've increased their profits by reducing labor costs. The goal of American trade policy has historically been to improve the American economy. If we want to help Vietnam, it should be through direct foreign aid to Vietnam and Vietnamese-owned businesses, not by giving assistance to American business & Corporations who want to substitute Vietnamese workers for American workers to lower their own costs of production for American markets. unlawflcombatnt Economic Populist Forum EconomicPopulistCommentary _________________ The economy needs balance between the "means of production" & "means of consumption."

12-14-2006, 09:35 PM	#7 (permalink)
guyy Addict Location: Cottage Grove, Wisconsin	This casts a slightly different light on the Ol' Vietnam War, doesn't it? In 1975, the last US agents leave the roof of the embassy in Ho Chi Minh City. Some 10 or so years later, Gorby and Ronnie become chummy. By the 14 year mark, in 1989, the Cold War ends. (So much for the domino theory!) Some 30 years later, Richard Nixon's ideological scions are finalising an agreement with Ho Chi Minh's political heirs which fully integrates Vietnam into the networks of global capitalism. (n.b. It is already fairly well integrated. Plenty of stuff In Stores Now!!! is Made in Vietnam.)

12-15-2006, 06:02 AM	#8 (permalink)
The_Jazz Asshole Administrator Location: Chicago	Am I the only one who finds it odd that the OP is citing himself as a source here? Maybe I'm missing something, but all of his links are to his blog. __________________ "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin "There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush "We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo

12-16-2006, 08:41 PM	#10 (permalink)
Nimetic Junkie Location: Melbourne, Australia	But what is the alternative. Would you prefer Vietnam to be "isolated". Their only friends other US enemies pehaps? Maybe they could sell rice to North Korea in exchange for technology, or cashews to Iran in exchange for oil. Maybe the US could cut trade with Russia too yes? Any scenario that I think of is worse than them exporting a clothes. But it's all beside the point. Vietnam is already trading, within asiapac and with Europe.

12-18-2006, 02:27 PM	#12 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	welcome to the brave new world of globalizing capitalism, now almost 40 years old...where have you been? you are just noticing? wake up. you know, globalization: conditioned by the transnational trade in stock (since the early 1970s) so that the idea of a nationally-specific corporate entity means nothing, has meant nothing; real-time financial flows that have for years been redrawing the political geography of capitalism away from its old-fashioned, outmoded emphasis on nation-states, any illusion of democratic redress, any meaningful requirement for or interest in social stability...you know, globalizing capitalism, which unfolds in a special, separate dimension severed from the social, severed from the political, which is like the weather, which blows this way and that leaving all of us in a position of having-to-adapt.....because how do you complain about the weather? how do you organize to oppose changes in the forces of Nature? globalization, which is enabled by a neoliberal ideological framework that sees maximization of corporate profits as a necessary good regardless of the social consequences--a bankrupt horrorshow ideology that still somehow twitches on television sets across america, even as corporate sector after corporate sector back away from it as being suicidal for business...but one that has the advantage of depoliticizing the consequences of reorganization and of enabling the holders of capital to extract maximum short term profits that they will no doubt need to reinforce their gated communities and to hire private militias once the neo-feudal order that is the logical consequence of neoliberalism comes into full, fetid blossom... globalization that is enabled by the development of the internet we communicate across, the computers that we like to pretend free us, the supply chain management technologies, real-time supply chain management, a highly rationalized transportation infrastructure that enables an internationalization of just-in-time systems...the commodity results of which you have been eating, dressing in, driving, listening to, watching for 20 years... yes, all this has just started. and clearly the problem is vietnam. wake up. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

12-21-2006, 03:59 AM	#13 (permalink)
Nimetic Junkie Location: Melbourne, Australia	You aren't clear here. The manufacturing is/has mainly gone to Japan, Taiwan and China I expect. Vietnam is a mere mosquito compared to China + India. How much stuff do you buy from Vietnam (seriously). Probably not much. In terms of trade, I was making some points. Show me that you understand at least two of them and we can converse more. On the jobs front. Heck, I thought the US had that solved. Put a portion of the population in jail, employ another large portion as security (police and guards), put a portion in the military, and withdraw welfare from the rest. Bingo. Low unemployment. What is this subject 'popular economics'. Is this something like 'popular science'? Last edited by Nimetic; 12-21-2006 at 04:01 AM.. Reason: Automerged Doublepost

12-21-2006, 07:50 AM	#14 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	nimetic: are you talking to me above? __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

12-23-2006, 04:28 PM	#15 (permalink)
Nimetic Junkie Location: Melbourne, Australia	No. And apologies, I got sorta annoyed at the original poster. I lost my cool for a moment - which is not polite, and which does not put a reasonable or logical case. To unlawflcombatant, I apologize for my tone. With respect, I disagree with your point. My understanding of the US is that it has benefitted from being a strong trading nation. Perhaps I am wrong, but that is the situation as I understand it. For what it's worth, we face similar issues AU, we are relatively self sufficient with fuel (oil-gas-uranium-coal), food, minerals and technology. Due to increased pressure from Asia, our car manufacturers periodically struggle however, our IT workers are more inept each day and are being supplemented by overseas labour (working here on Visas in many cases). Despite this, I don't think that isolationism nor protectionism (in it's extreme form) is an answer.