# Made in America



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

Joe Smith started the day early having set his alarm clock (*made in Japan*) for 6am. While his coffee pot (*made in China*) was perking, he shaved with his electric razor (*made in Hong Kong*). He put on a dress shirt (*made in Sri Lanka*), designer jeans (*made in Singapore*) and his shoes (*made in Korea*). After cooking his breakfast in his new electric skillet (*made in India*) he sat down with his calculator (*made in Mexico*) to see how much he could spend today. After setting his watch (*made in Taiwan*) to the radio (*made in India*) he got in his car (*made in Germany*) filled it with GAS (*from Saudi Arabia*) and continued his search for a good paying_AMERICAN JOB_. At the end of yet another discouraging and fruitless day checking his Computer (*made in Malaysia*), Joe decided to relax for a while. He put on his sandals (*made in Brazil*) poured himself a glass of wine (*made in France*) and turned on his TV (*made in Indonesia*), and then wondered why he can't find a good paying job in..* A**MERICA* ....

*Maybe he can join the Air force and fly one of their soon to be made in France tanker jets . . . *


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

WA said:


> Joe Smith started the day early having set his alarm clock (*made in Japan*) for 6am. While his coffee pot (*made in China*) was perking, he shaved with his electric razor (*made in Hong Kong*). He put on a dress shirt (*made in Sri Lanka*), designer jeans (*made in Singapore*) and his shoes (*made in Korea*). After cooking his breakfast in his new electric skillet (*made in India*) he sat down with his calculator (*made in Mexico*) to see how much he could spend today. After setting his watch (*made in Taiwan*) to the radio (*made in India*) he got in his car (*made in Germany*) filled it with GAS (*from Saudi Arabia*) and continued his search for a good paying_AMERICAN JOB_. At the end of yet another discouraging and fruitless day checking his Computer (*made in Malaysia*), Joe decided to relax for a while. He put on his sandals (*made in Brazil*) poured himself a glass of wine (*made in France*) and turned on his TV (*made in Indonesia*), and then wondered why he can't find a good paying job in..* A**MERICA* ....
> 
> *Maybe he can join the Air force and fly one of their soon to be made in France tanker jets . . . *


Where did Joe go to college?


----------



## KenR (Jun 22, 2005)

He still can get a good job in America, but not necessarily one connected with the manufacturing of small appliances or certain consumer goods. I think it is called the _Global Economy_.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

The TI BA II PLUS is made in China, not Mexico.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

Having allowed our pioneering work in aviation to fall behind, The AEF armed it's aero squadrons with Nieuport 28 scouts, Brequet XXI bombers, Salmson bombers and finally the SPAD XIII. All made in France. American manufacture soon began producing large quanitities of the Curtis JN 4 'Jenny' trainer and many seaplanes pionered by that firm. We also license built the DH 4 De Haviland bomber, aka flying coffin.But have hope. In 1940 a french fighter element of 4 craft flying again, Curtiss P- 36 Hawks ( the radial engined precursor to the famous P- 40 series) annhilated an entire squadron of JU- 87 Stukas before their late fighter escorts, 2 BF-109s showed up. The Messershmidts promptly shot down one Hawk, who's pilot actually was credited with an aerial victory when his canopy detached on bailout and smashed into his opponent's propellor. The remaining Hawks utilised that aircraft's superior full throttle manueverability and flamed the second 109. Lets just hope the froggy tankers come with some Perrier engine coolant.


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

Maybe Joe Smith needs to find a job?


----------



## KenR (Jun 22, 2005)

Maybe he can become a cart collection engineer.


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

KenR said:


> Maybe he can become a cart collection engineer.


No,they pay minimum wage.


----------



## Rossini (Oct 7, 2007)

KenR said:


> He still can get a good job in America, but not necessarily one connected with the manufacturing of small appliances or certain consumer goods. I think it is called the _Global Economy_.


Indeed.

I'm curious to know what designer jean brand was bought from Singapore, however. Any details?


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

Are shopping carts still made in America?


----------



## Rossini (Oct 7, 2007)

Kav said:


> Are shopping carts still made in America?


Looks like lots * but I imagine many come from China, too.

_*Headquartered in Wagoner Oklahoma, Unarco is the world's largest shopping cart manufacturer, with a dominant market share in North America and an ever expanding international presence._


----------



## XdryMartini (Jan 5, 2008)

I'm sure he feels "entitled" to a great job w/o putting forth any effort to train himself or educate himself. It's all society's fault and we should pay him welfare!!


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

Joe seems to have alot of nice stuff for a guy out of work. Perhaps he should tighten his belt and go a bit downscale. German car, wine and designer jeans? I don't even have designer jeans!


----------



## Relayer (Nov 9, 2005)

Joe could have bought himself a good ole made-in-America Toyota!


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

Joe could also fire Jose who mows his lawn and Jaunita who cleans house. Get Joe JR an old fashioned push mower that doesn't require gasoline from the local gas station owned by Yousseff and tell wife Joan her cheerleading days are over. Then everyone can walk 2 blocks to a traditional american meal of chinese takeout at Chow's. Everybody should eat at Chow's. He's putting 2 good american kids through John Hopkins. Jeez, this is so easy any Tom, Dick or Harry could do it.


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

Rossini said:


> Looks like lots * but I imagine many come from China, too.
> 
> _*Headquartered in Wagoner Oklahoma, Unarco is the world's largest shopping cart manufacturer, with a dominant market share in North America and an ever expanding international presence._


Wow,Pathmark could sure use some more new ones.We had a truckload of Waldabums carts just arrived a few weeks ago.


----------



## eg1 (Jan 17, 2007)

Kav said:


> Having allowed our pioneering work in aviation to fall behind, The AEF armed it's aero squadrons with Nieuport 28 scouts, Brequet XXI bombers, Salmson bombers and finally the SPAD XIII. All made in France. American manufacture soon began producing large quanitities of the Curtis JN 4 'Jenny' trainer and many seaplanes pionered by that firm. We also license built the DH 4 De Haviland bomber, aka flying coffin.But have hope. In 1940 a french fighter element of 4 craft flying again, Curtiss P- 36 Hawks ( the radial engined precursor to the famous P- 40 series) annhilated an entire squadron of JU- 87 Stukas before their late fighter escorts, 2 BF-109s showed up. The Messershmidts promptly shot down one Hawk, who's pilot actually was credited with an aerial victory when his canopy detached on bailout and smashed into his opponent's propellor. The remaining Hawks utilised that aircraft's superior full throttle manueverability and flamed the second 109. Lets just hope the froggy tankers come with some Perrier engine coolant.


But what about the Christie tank? That turned out to be a nice bit of design. Of course, youse Yanks didn't want it ...


----------



## marlinspike (Jun 4, 2007)

Sounds to me like Joe has a lot of poor quality garbage that either won't last long or doesn't function well (except perhaps the car). Maybe if Joe bought less stuff (nobody needs jeans, coffee, wine, sandals, or a television - I know I don't have them) he could have bought better stuff, stuff that wouldn't have been made with slave labor. If his stuff were better it would last longer, costing him less money in the long run. Then Joe would have been able to afford to spend more time on little to no income and get an education in a trade.

BTW, while the rule is still on the books that the government agencies are to preference American products, the agency heads tell their people that they are to buy the cheapest product, so of course we'd start outsourcing out military craft.

I'm glad the dollar is taking a beating, so all these pro-NAFTA and Free Trade with China companies that decided screw the unions let's go Mexico, let's go China, can take a little bit of a thumping. The whole system works against paying people a living wage. Why did the Bush administration, which has never cared about enviro regs in earnest, push for certain aspects of this energy bill? Well, I have it on good authority that they were the ones pushing (with the help of GE and Phillips) for the incandescent light-bulb phase out. Why phase these bulbs out if the people feel it's worth the higher electric bills? Because incandescents are made with unionized-US labor and CFLs are made in China for 25 cents/bulb (interesting how they cost so much more though, ain't it?)


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

marlinspike said:


> Sounds to me like Joe has a lot of poor quality garbage that either won't last long or doesn't function well (except perhaps the car). Maybe if Joe bought less stuff (nobody needs jeans, coffee, wine, sandals, or a television - I know I don't have them) he could have bought better stuff, stuff that wouldn't have been made with slave labor. If his stuff were better it would last longer, costing him less money in the long run. Then Joe would have been able to afford to spend more time on little to no income and get an education in a trade.
> 
> BTW, while the rule is still on the books that the government agencies are to preference American products, the agency heads tell their people that they are to buy the cheapest product, so of course we'd start outsourcing out military craft.
> 
> I'm glad the dollar is taking a beating, so all these pro-NAFTA and Free Trade with China companies that decided screw the unions let's go Mexico, let's go China, can take a little bit of a thumping. The whole system works against paying people a living wage. Why did the Bush administration, which has never cared about enviro regs in earnest, push for certain aspects of this energy bill? Well, I have it on good authority that they were the ones pushing (with the help of GE and Phillips) for the incandescent light-bulb phase out. Why phase these bulbs out if the people feel it's worth the higher electric bills? Because incandescents are made with unionized-US labor and CFLs are made in China for 25 cents/bulb (interesting how they cost so much more though, ain't it?)


Maybe you should look into a television?

Ignoring FNS, if you even had CNN it would save the rest of us a lot of grief.

Call me a "good authority." I'm just saying.


----------



## marlinspike (Jun 4, 2007)

TV news is some of the worst. They run that CNN garbage in the library. I'll take the newspapers, thank you very much. (well, them and primary sources)


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

The problem is that almost nobody, almost certainly including Joe, wants a ****** job with no future making small appliances.

The other problem is that the Americans who do want those jobs have long since realized that any illiterate moron could do their jobs, but still think that they're entitled to dictate the terms of their employment, and that they're entitled to fifty times the compensation that similarly unskilled workers in other parts of the world get. So they used the government to extort the money from other Americans.

At a certain point Americans decided that they'd had enough of paying high prices for goods to support the unions, and so-- bam, no more trade protectionism and suddenly the union shops had to compete on equal footing with foreigners who would do the same job, just as well, for 1/50th the cost.


----------



## smujd (Mar 18, 2008)

marlinspike said:


> TV news is some of the worst. They run that CNN garbage in the library. I'll take the newspapers, thank you very much. (well, them and primary sources)


True. TV news is no news. Give me the NYT and WSJ any day.

Bill


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

marlinspike said:


> TV news is some of the worst. They run that CNN garbage in the library. I'll take the newspapers, thank you very much. (well, them and primary sources)


ROFLM*O @ primary sources

Do they spend a lot of time at your library?


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

The library? I think he means he spends his time talking to people who were actually there...


----------



## mikeber (May 5, 2004)

PedanticTurkey said:


> The problem is that almost nobody, almost certainly including Joe, wants a ****** job with no future making small appliances.


We, the American society made these jobs without a future. BTW, please educate me which jobs do have a future...


> The other problem is that the Americans who do want those jobs have long since realized that any illiterate moron could do their jobs, but still think that they're entitled to dictate the terms of their employment, and that they're entitled to fifty times the compensation that similarly unskilled workers in other parts of the world get. So they used the government to extort the money from other Americans.
> At a certain point Americans decided that they'd had enough of paying high prices for goods to support the unions, and so-- bam, no more trade protectionism and suddenly the union shops had to compete on equal footing with foreigners who would do the same job, just as well, for 1/50th the cost.


One day you will wake up and find that there is almost NO JOB THAT SOMEONE ELSE ON THE PLANET CANT DO FOR LESS...
For example - most executives of so called US companies (which conduct the majority of their business elsewhere) are Americans paid huge salaries, benefits and bonuses. What makes you believe that those companies cannot be managed by Indian or Chinese CEOs at a fraction of cost? For every US executive you can hire TEN for less the money...Don't you believe that other countries produce talented managers? Why haven't Americans decide that they had enough paying exuberant salaries to (sometimes unworthy) executives?


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

Because the government isn't forcing anyone to pay executives high salaries? Boy, that was a tough one.


----------



## mikeber (May 5, 2004)

Turkey, that has nothing to do with the government.
It's all about the misconception that many people have about the economy and the labor market. There is a lot of propaganda in the air, mostly being pushed by the interest groups. The majority of people behave like a flock of sheep following TRENDS. 
The current trend is the one you believe in, but please do not try to rationalize it. 
Look further and try to visualize what will the US be 20-30 years down the road. An economy based solely on money movers and lawyers? These people do not create real, sustainable wealth. They only create mounts of paperwork, which when the bubble burst are only that - paper.


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

You're seriously going to tell me that labor unions and protectionist trade policies have nothing to do with the government?


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

mikeber said:


> We, the American society made these jobs without a future. BTW, please educate me which jobs do have a future...
> 
> One day you will wake up and find that there is almost NO JOB THAT SOMEONE ELSE ON THE PLANET CANT DO FOR LESS...
> For example - most executives of so called US companies (which conduct the majority of their business elsewhere) are Americans paid huge salaries, benefits and bonuses. What makes you believe that those companies cannot be managed by Indian or Chinese CEOs at a fraction of cost? For every US executive you can hire TEN for less the money...Don't you believe that other countries produce talented managers? Why haven't Americans decide that they had enough paying exuberant salaries to (sometimes unworthy) executives?


Well, I know I'm awake.

CEOs are not "talented managers." In the current economic paradigm, "talented managers" become 'consultants of choice' not executives especially CEOs.

"Americans" don't decide executive pay. Boards of Directors and specifically executive compensation committees decide CEO pay. So, whether "Americans" have had enough or not is irrelevant.

Comparable CEOs in China, India, and the rest of the world already make the same (or more) than U.S. CEOs. Even the so-called "trivially informed" should know this by now. U.S. CEOs with global experience make far more than U.S.-centric CEOs.

Still let's take your premise, "there is almost NO JOB THAT SOMEONE ELSE ON THE PLANET CANT DO FOR LESS" that is saying there is no price at which there are almost no sellers. What would that premise say about the labor theory of value for instance?


----------



## XdryMartini (Jan 5, 2008)

Can this thread take the place of Economics 101?? :teacha:


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

XdryMartini said:


> Can this thread take the place of Economics 101?? :teacha:


I don't know,Do you think we'd learn something?


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

marlinspike said:


> I'm glad the dollar is taking a beating, so all these pro-NAFTA and Free Trade with China companies that decided screw the unions let's go Mexico, let's go China, can take a little bit of a thumping. The whole system works against paying people a living wage.


That's accurate, if by "people" you mean Americans and by "living wage" you mean a wage sufficient to keep them in the lifestyle to which they have grown, via easy credit and the toils of their immigrant ancestors, accustom.

Poor people around the world are clamoring for the opportunity to work harder than Americans for lower wages, so that they may enjoy a standard of living comparable to Americans 60 years ago. Somehow allowing them this opportunity is understood to present serious moral problems. Strange indeed.

That said, a weak dollar is the predictable result of a persistent trade deficit. As dollars are accumulated abroad their value eventually declines. This has been predicted by economists for years. It is not a bad thing -- it does hurt consumers generally as well as US businesses dependent on imported goods or services, but it certainly helps domestic industries dependent on exports.


----------



## marlinspike (Jun 4, 2007)

PedanticTurkey said:


> The library? I think he means he spends his time talking to people who were actually there...


Thank you Pedantic. Maybe I'm dense, but I don't even know what ksinc meant about the library. How would the library afford me access to primary sources?


----------



## mikeber (May 5, 2004)

ksinc said:


> Well, I know I'm awake.
> CEOs are not "talented managers." In the current economic paradigm, "talented managers" become 'consultants of choice' not executives especially CEOs.
> "Americans" don't decide executive pay. Boards of Directors and specifically executive compensation committees decide CEO pay. So, whether "Americans" have had enough or not is irrelevant.


If "Americans" decide one day not to buy the stock of those companies who overpay their executives, its a done deal. In fact, there is no need to stop buying their stock. A few articles in the WSJ, some TV investigations followed by negative commentaries, will be enough to convince boards (which are very sensitive to public opinion) that "for the benefit of the company" they should change gears, especially at unprofitable companies. 


> Comparable CEOs in China, India, and the rest of the world already make the same (or more) than U.S. CEOs. Even the so-called "trivially informed" should know this by now. U.S. CEOs with global experience make far more than U.S.-centric CEOs.


That is far from truth with the majority of companies. In some cases (like huge conglomerates) CEOs indeed benefit from disproportional incomes. But my remark was not aimed at CEOs only. The whole management team of sometimes 50-100 individuals are overplayed. 


> Still let's take your premise, "there is almost NO JOB THAT SOMEONE ELSE ON THE PLANET CANT DO FOR LESS" that is saying there is no price at which there are almost no sellers. What would that premise say about the labor theory of value for instance?


That each country should pay their laborers according to the local standard of living (which is of course dynamic). If you bring the whole globe to the lowest common denominator, western countries will be out of business on the spot.


----------



## marlinspike (Jun 4, 2007)

Mike Petrik said:


> Poor people around the world are clamoring for the opportunity to work harder than Americans for lower wages, so that they may enjoy a standard of living comparable to Americans 60 years ago. Somehow allowing them this opportunity is understood to present serious moral problems. Strange indeed.


No, the problem is the production in those companies is subject to nothing in the way of environmental regulations or safety regulations. They also have no issues with employing children. They are not enjoying the standard of living of Americans 60 years ago. They are at best enjoying the standard of living in England during the industrial revolution.


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

marlinspike said:


> No, the problem is the production in those companies is subject to nothing in the way of environmental regulations or safety regulations. They also have no issues with employing children. They are not enjoying the standard of living of Americans 60 years ago. They are at best enjoying the standard of living in England during the industrial revolution.


An unlevel playing field is a fair concern, but let there be no mistake: US companies are currently moving production abroad principally for the same reason that they have been moving production from the north to the south since WWII -- cheaper labor. And the fact is that this migration helped the south catch the north in terms of standard of living, and the same is happening worldwide via globalization. While the industrial revolution included some horrible stuff, the hard fact is that the standard of living of the working class of that era was significantly superior to that of prior generations. It is plain that some folks judge both historic and foreign conditions through a modern American lens, and misuse modern American sensibilities as a pretext to simply protect their own self-interest. I'm all for self-interest -- just let's be honest about it.


----------



## marlinspike (Jun 4, 2007)

Mike Petrik said:


> An unlevel playing field is a fair concern, but let there be no mistake: US companies are currently moving production abroad principally for the same reason that they have been moving production from the north to the south since WWII -- cheaper labor. And the fact is that this migration helped the south catch the north in terms of standard of living, and the same is happening worldwide via globalization. While the industrial revolution included some horrible stuff, the hard fact is that the standard of living of the working class of that era was significantly superior to that of prior generations. It is plain that some folks judge both historic and foreign conditions through a modern American lens, and misuse modern American sensibilities as a pretext to simply protect their own self-interest. I'm all for self-interest -- just let's be honest about it.


I don't think cheaper labor alone would be worth it. New Balance's made in USA shoes (which are better shoes than their non-USA ones in the first place) only cost a few bucks (I seem to recall the number is around $4/pair) to get to the shelves than their made in China shoes. Labor alone isn't enough to counter lower worker efficiency, transport costs, and the limitations on on-demand inventory.

The environmental regs are a HUGE factor. Chinese companies that make solar panels literally put their chemical waste on a dumptruck, drive outside the company gates, and dump it on the ground.


----------



## mikeber (May 5, 2004)

Mike Petrik said:


> That's accurate, if by "people" you mean Americans and by "living wage" you mean a wage sufficient to keep them in the lifestyle to which they have grown, via easy credit and the toils of their immigrant ancestors, accustom.


Yes and again yes! It is not about "lifestyle", but about survival. 


> Poor people around the world are clamoring for the opportunity to work harder than Americans for lower wages, so that they may enjoy a standard of living comparable to Americans 60 years ago. Somehow allowing them this opportunity is understood to present serious moral problems. Strange indeed.


To tell the truth - I am first concerned with our poor - these in the US. Call me a protectionist, but in my mind they come first... I do not favor allowing "opportunity" to others on the expense of US citizens. And you are not concerned with opportunities for foreigners. It is just how you rationalize buying cheap goods from Asia. It there would have been no cheap products, the case for opportunity would not have been argued. 


> That said, a weak dollar is the predictable result of a persistent trade deficit. As dollars are accumulated abroad their value eventually declines. This has been predicted by economists for years. It is not a bad thing -- it does hurt consumers generally as well as US businesses dependent on imported goods or services, but it certainly helps domestic industries dependent on exports.


What exports? We mainly buy goods from Asian countries.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

mikeber said:


> If "Americans" decide one day not to buy the stock of those companies who overpay their executives, its a done deal. In fact, there is no need to stop buying their stock. A few articles in the WSJ, some TV investigations followed by negative commentaries, will be enough to convince boards (which are very sensitive to public opinion) that "for the benefit of the company" they should change gears, especially at unprofitable companies.
> 
> That is far from truth with the majority of companies. In some cases (like huge conglomerates) CEOs indeed benefit from disproportional incomes. But my remark was not aimed at CEOs only. The whole management team of sometimes 50-100 individuals are overplayed.
> 
> That each country should pay their laborers according to the local standard of living (which is of course dynamic). If you bring the whole globe to the lowest common denominator, western countries will be out of business on the spot.


Americans are not the only stockholders. In fact, most of the 'big new money' is foreign such as SWFs. So, no it's not a done deal.

You cannot make an intellectually and factually correct argument that the whole management team is over[paid]. And; management teams are not "laborers".

To review: CEOs are not managers; managers are not laborers.

Econ 102 signups are down the hall


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

mikeber said:


> What exports? We mainly buy goods from Asian countries.


Perhaps you and MarlinSpike could go 50:50 on a Television?

"Exports of goods to China have grown by 31.7 percent in 2006"

I heard it's ~40% for 2007.


----------



## brokencycle (Jan 11, 2008)

> I'm glad the dollar is taking a beating, so all these pro-NAFTA and Free Trade with China companies that decided screw the unions let's go Mexico, let's go China, can take a little bit of a thumping. The whole system works against paying people a living wage. Why did the Bush administration, which has never cared about enviro regs in earnest, push for certain aspects of this energy bill? Well, I have it on good authority that they were the ones pushing (with the help of GE and Phillips) for the incandescent light-bulb phase out. Why phase these bulbs out if the people feel it's worth the higher electric bills? Because incandescents are made with unionized-US labor and CFLs are made in China for 25 cents/bulb (interesting how they cost so much more though, ain't it?)


That's just an example of why the free market is good. You liberals can't have it both ways. Either there are free markets or there aren't. This "free but fair" trade nonsense being touted by Obama and Hillary are nonsense. They are neither free nor fair. If the market was allowed to move its own course there would be incandecent bulbs until there was a cheaper/better alternative. Just like the new gas-mileage standards will likely kill the electric car: the auto-manufacturers will spend all their resources pushing the gasoline engine further rather than on other propulsion systems. Ironically, ethanol that is being forced down our throats by the government is less efficient for highway miles than regular gasoline.


----------



## mikeber (May 5, 2004)

ksinc said:


> Perhaps you and MarlinSpike could go 50:50 on a Television?
> 
> "Exports of goods to China have grown by 31.7 percent in 2006"
> 
> I heard it's ~40% for 2007.


From the report:
"International travel is one of the largest exports for the United States, ranking ahead of agricultural goods and motor vehicles. Purchases of services and goods by foreign travelers, including expenditures for food, lodging, recreations, and gifts while in the U.S. are counted as U.S. exports..." 
What kind of "exports" they are talking about?...Please, give us a brake...
The more important figures are those with China. What they don't mention is that much of the US exports to China are raw materials which are transformed by Chinese workers into finished products... that are exported back to the US. 
That being said, I realize that this is the current situation and it cannot be reversed. All I ask is not to rationalize it, since it doesn't hold water. And, as everyone else, I also benefit from cheap appliances and textiles, but I do remember that they come at a price which is hidden.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

mikeber said:


> From the report:
> "International travel is one of the largest exports for the United States, ranking ahead of agricultural goods and motor vehicles. Purchases of services and goods by foreign travelers, including expenditures for food, lodging, recreations, and gifts while in the U.S. are counted as U.S. exports..."
> What kind of "exports" they are talking about?...Please, give us a brake...
> The more important figures are those with China. What they don't mention is that much of the US exports to China are raw materials which are transformed by Chinese workers into finished products... that are exported back to the US.
> That being said, I realize that this is the current situation and it cannot be reversed. All I ask is not to rationalize it, since it doesn't hold water. And, as everyone else, I also benefit from cheap appliances and textiles, but I do remember that they come at a price which is hidden.


Yes, I'm aware the important figure is the exports to China that is why I quoted it. You asked "what exports?" in regard to Asian countries and I was trying to help inform you. If the question was disingenuous, then my mistake.



> TOP TEN U.S. EXPORTS TO CHINA, 2005: (millions of dollars)
> 
> 1. Electrical machinery 5,170
> 
> ...





> -- Nearly every state has registered triple-digit growth in exports to
> China since 2000, far outpacing exports to the rest of the world. Total US
> exports to China from 2000 to 2007 grew 300 percent, from $16 billion to
> $65 billion; total US exports to the rest of the world grew only 50
> ...





> During the first 11 months of the year, China imported US$171.42 billion worth of primary products, an increase of 28.2 percent. The import of iron ore reached 300 million tons, up by 19.8 percent; crude oils, 130 million tons, an increase of 15.6 percent; processed oils, 34.24 million tons, growing21.1 percent; coal, 33.84 million tons, up 46.1 percent; soy beans, 25.85 million tons, a rise of 7.8 percent. During the same period, the import of industrial products reached US$547.1 billion, increasing by 18.5 percent and accounting for 76.1 percent of the total import during the same period. Machinery and electronic products' import was up 23.5 percent to US$387.63 billion, and that of chemicals and related products and automobiles rose 10.6 percent to US$78.59 billion and 40.3 percent to 203,000 units, respectively. Alumina and unprocessed copper and copper materials imports were 6.37 million tons and 1.855 million tons, down 1.1 percent and 21 percent, respectively.


----------



## marlinspike (Jun 4, 2007)

ksinc said:


> Perhaps you and MarlinSpike could go 50:50 on a Television?
> 
> "Exports of goods to China have grown by 31.7 percent in 2006"
> 
> I heard it's ~40% for 2007.


Ksinc, I never said we don't export. If I said that, then it would make no sense for me to say that the weaker currency will help our balance of trade. Maybe you should find a 1st grader and go 50:50 on hooked on phonics? This is the second time in this thread alone that you've made some sort of unfounded remark towards me that an elementary school student would find witty.


----------



## marlinspike (Jun 4, 2007)

brokencycle said:


> That's just an example of why the free market is good. You liberals can't have it both ways. Either there are free markets or there aren't. This "free but fair" trade nonsense being touted by Obama and Hillary are nonsense. They are neither free nor fair. If the market was allowed to move its own course there would be incandecent bulbs until there was a cheaper/better alternative. Just like the new gas-mileage standards will likely kill the electric car: the auto-manufacturers will spend all their resources pushing the gasoline engine further rather than on other propulsion systems. Ironically, ethanol that is being forced down our throats by the government is less efficient for highway miles than regular gasoline.


Who wants it both ways? Did I ever say in here that I like free trade agreements with countries that don't have comparable environmental laws, safety regulations, labor laws, and industry subsidies? You start off with "you liberals," but you then criticize two things that were pushed for by "you conservatives" as well.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

marlinspike said:


> Ksinc, I never said we don't export. If I said that, then it would make no sense for me to say that the weaker currency will help our balance of trade. Maybe you should find a 1st grader and go 50:50 on hooked on phonics? This is the second time in this thread alone that you've made some sort of unfounded remark towards me that an elementary school student would find witty.


If you didn't say we don't export and I quoted someone saying "What exports?" then perhaps you could scroll up, reread, and see that I was responding to Mikeber and not to you.

What I said was, that since Mikeber doesn't know 'what exports' and in the other thread you said you don't have a TV maybe you two could go halvsies so you could both be better informed instead of asking us questions that have obvious answers that can be found with trivial access to information.

Wit has nothing to do with it. And; my remark is well-founded. Thanks for your comment and suggestion though; it means a lot to me.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

Anybody here old enough to remember when most everything bought in the US was made in the US? 

When I was in grade school Japanese radios were terrible and few people bought them. Then Taiwan became the cheap place of imported "bads". And, so on. Each of these places moved up the food chain. When in Middle School West Coast timber was sent to Japan and came back as lumber at a cost less than the mills here could do. Back in those days there were many jobs for most everyone. Today millions of different types of jobs are gone and not everybody is made of college stuff. How many college grads are natually craftsman? And, how many craftsman are natually made for college? By saying that eveybody can do well in college would be saying that everybody can write music as good a Mozart (can anybody here write music?). And for college grads to mentally turn craftsmen into just cheap labouers is another lie about human value, a clear economical blunder.


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

> Anybody here old enough to remember when most everything bought in the US was made in the US?


Now everything is manufactured from different parts of the world.


----------



## omairp (Aug 21, 2006)

Maybe Joe should get a job as an importer. :icon_smile_big:


----------



## Rossini (Oct 7, 2007)

WA said:


> Anybody here old enough to remember when most everything bought in the US was made in the US?


Remember when everything we dragged back to the cave was killed or whittled locally?! :icon_smile_big:

Imagine living in a global market! :icon_smile:

Howard, uniquely, summed it up.

Nevertheless, for a variety of reasons, at the very least, sustainable local food supply is something that should not be foregone.


----------



## YoungEconomist (Feb 9, 2007)

XdryMartini said:


> Can this thread take the place of Economics 101?? :teacha:


As a professor of economics, I shudder at the thought.


----------



## YoungEconomist (Feb 9, 2007)

WA said:


> Anybody here old enough to remember when most everything bought in the US was made in the US?
> 
> When I was in grade school Japanese radios were terrible and few people bought them. Then Taiwan became the cheap place of imported "bads". And, so on. Each of these places moved up the food chain. When in Middle School West Coast timber was sent to Japan and came back as lumber at a cost less than the mills here could do. Back in those days there were many jobs for most everyone. Today millions of different types of jobs are gone and not everybody is made of college stuff. How many college grads are natually craftsman? And, how many craftsman are natually made for college? By saying that eveybody can do well in college would be saying that everybody can write music as good a Mozart (can anybody here write music?). And for college grads to mentally turn craftsmen into just cheap labouers is another lie about human value, a clear economical blunder.


The first half of the statement is a little misguided, but the second half is a point not made often enough. Craftsmanship is something that, for some reason, isn't valued in america much. What many people don't realize is that Plumbers, Electricians, Carpenters, et cetera are actually in great demand, and typically, don't need a bachelor's degree. These are careers that are obviously not in danger of being out-sourced.

If people really had a problem with outsourcing, then they would pay a little more and buy products that were produced domestically. The truth is that most people aren't willing to pay more for a product, even if it is higher quality (which is may or may not be). Call it rational ignorance; call it apathy. The simple fact remains, companies want to maximize profits. They do that by selling to consumers, to whom they are ultimately responsible to. Firms simple charge as much as they can without driving too many customers away, while producing for a low a cost as possible. In some cases, that is what they are legally obligated to do.

Plus, one the whole, trade is beneficial for both countries (although with a mix of people who gain and people who lose in each).


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

YoungEconomist said:


> As a professor of economics, I shudder at the thought.


Really? This thread is a lot more appropo than guns vs. butter or who is Ricardo.

Econ 101 these days is usually nothing more than an opportunity to bash Walmart, Microsoft, and the Government. It reminded me of Intro to Business Law and the Ethics course in that way. Talk about academics with an agenda ... whew!

Of course, I'm just bitter because my one B in my undergrad program was because my paper analyzing Stalin's economic plan was not well received by the hippie they had teaching the course. 

I sent the professor a copy of "The Red Badge of Courage" signed 'summa cum laude' October, 1917. I thought the irony was cute.

Welcome to the free market exchange of ideas known as the Interchange!


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

YoungEconomist said:


> The first half of the statement is a little misguided, but the second half is a point not made often enough. Craftsmanship is something that, for some reason, isn't valued in america much. What many people don't realize is that Plumbers, Electricians, Carpenters, et cetera are actually in great demand, and typically, don't need a bachelor's degree. These are careers that are obviously not in danger of being out-sourced.
> 
> If people really had a problem with outsourcing, then they would pay a little more and buy products that were produced domestically. The truth is that most people aren't willing to pay more for a product, even if it is higher quality (which is may or may not be). Call it rational ignorance; call it apathy. The simple fact remains, companies want to maximize profits. They do that by selling to consumers, to whom they are ultimately responsible to. Firms simple charge as much as they can without driving too many customers away, while producing for a low a cost as possible. In some cases, that is what they are legally obligated to do.
> 
> Plus, one the whole, trade is beneficial for both countries (although with a mix of people who gain and people who lose in each).


I actually disagreed with the second part because while the first part denotes the change in the economy the second refuses to acknowledge the change in what college is. True one day all were not made for college, but most colleges have responded to market forces and offer relevant programs for almost everyone. DeVry offers a degree in video game graphics programming for example.

I was just reading an article today in CFO I will link to on the influence of the Big 4 on accounting programs because of the influence of Sarbox on audit skills.

https://www.cfo.com/article.cfm/10903973/c_10904666?f=home_todayinfinance

Here in Orlando, one of our community colleges has an AS program that teaches Motorcycle Mechanics.

To argue the point by stating college explicitly means a bachelor's degree seems well ... a bit odd for someone in academics. Even Masters level programs are offering certificates for adults vs. degree programs. There are a slew of adult and executive education options never before available.

There are a lot of public/private partnerships with CCs such as with Honeywell teaching their building control engineering systems in AS programs that qualify for licensure. I know for a fact Honeywell has a program like that at USF.

A guy that is licensed on Honeywell's system is worth about $65,000/year to a large property management company or a contract service company like Westbrook or Hughes.


----------



## brokencycle (Jan 11, 2008)

marlinspike said:


> Who wants it both ways? Did I ever say in here that I like free trade agreements with countries that don't have comparable environmental laws, safety regulations, labor laws, and industry subsidies? You start off with "you liberals," but you then criticize two things that were pushed for by "you conservatives" as well.


I don't know of any conservative who was pro increasing gas mileage standards or more ethanol. Republicans, yes, especially Republicans from corn growing states. A Republican does not equal conservative, just like a Democrat does not equal liberal.


----------



## Rossini (Oct 7, 2007)

ksinc said:


> I actually disagreed with the second part because while the first part denotes the change in the economy the second refuses to acknowledge the change in what college is.


I actually thought it was quite good until poor grammar and spelling undermined it. :icon_smile:


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

omairp said:


> Maybe Joe should get a job as an importer. :icon_smile_big:


Importer? Here In The U.S.?


----------



## fruityoaty (Jan 18, 2008)

Another interpretation:

Joe Smith started the day (in the greatest nation to have ever existed) early having set his alarm clock *(**that Japan traded him for a few pieces of paper*) for 6am. While his coffee pot (*that China traded him for a few pieces of paper*) was perking, he shaved with his electric razor (*that Hong Kong traded him for a few pieces of paper*) .... [H]e sat down ... to see how much [more stuff he could get by giving out pieces of paper] ... [He] continued his search for [a job in one of the highest paying countries on Earth.] At the end of yet another discouraging and fruitless day checking his Computer (*a luxury most people in the world don't have*), Joe decided to relax for a while. He put on his sandals, poured himself a glass of wine, and turned on his TV [a luxury he can afford the time for, because everyone else in the world is busy making stuff for him]*. *


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

YoungEconomist said:


> The first half of the statement is a little misguided,...


_Anybody here old enough to remember when most everything bought in the US was made in the US?_

Are you to young to even believe this is true? No doubt there were some European goods sold here, when I was a boy, but not where American workers got the shaft like they did with Asian goods. A few years ago the American steel mills were back in business, then they got the shaft, and the Asian steel is terrible; shackles made in China is probably twise as big and heavy and look like they have flaws as American made shackle.

Not everything you say is wrong, but look at it this way- Bushes Economy has been built upon the building industry- ever hear not to put all of ones eggs in 1 basket. Bush has had plenty of time to build a broader base for the American economy, but has neglected it for a war. Now that the American economy has an over supply of houses what is it going to stand on? Jobs being exported isn't bad up to a point, but beyond that people are going to be hurting. And the fat cats who made there money off of American money from exports are going to find out that an over amount of greed is not a good thing, though many are to dumb to know it. If you don't understand what I just said you don't belong teaching economics because you are wet behind the ears. So, you tell me how this ecomony is going to avoid a recession when the average man does not have a worth while (paying) job.

Plumbers and electians are good jobs when they are available, but now we have thousands of extras with no jobs because the new housing is kinda history for perhaps ten years. What kinds of jobs will these people get that have a worthy wage? If you were a plumber for 15 years in the new houseing industry making $25hr and there are no more jobs and you have been buying a house for ten years- where are you going to find another job? McDonalds for $10hr? Walmart for $8hr? How are you going to make the house payments? How many people are in this boat today? Loose the house and their name is in the mud. They followed the rules for the American dream only to find out the "experts" where not watching out for them and people in government were trying to stay popular. And economist don't know what they are talking about. When I was boy there were many jobs that had not been exported yet that paid well. If one part of the economy was down there were several dozen others that could give you a job. The roses still had thorns back then, but not so big and so many.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

fruityoaty said:


> Another interpretation:
> 
> Joe Smith started the day (in the greatest nation to have ever existed) early having set his alarm clock *(**that Japan traded him for a few pieces of paper*) for 6am. While his coffee pot (*that China traded him for a few pieces of paper*) was perking, he shaved with his electric razor (*that Hong Kong traded him for a few pieces of paper*) .... [H]e sat down ... to see how much [more stuff he could get by giving out pieces of paper] ... [He] continued his search for [a job in one of the highest paying countries on Earth.] At the end of yet another discouraging and fruitless day checking his Computer (*a luxury most people in the world don't have*), Joe decided to relax for a while. He put on his sandals, poured himself a glass of wine, and turned on his TV [a luxury he can afford the time for, because everyone else in the world is busy making stuff for him]*. *


That is nice. But how did it get that way?


----------



## Rossini (Oct 7, 2007)

In the global market, there are services, there is manufacturing, there is technology & innovation, there is sourcing of raw materials and foodstuffs, etc., etc. Not all of these things physically can or should take place everywhere. Why is it particularly bad that one country doesn't do manufacturing particularly well but instead focuses on innovation and services, for example? Isn't it just specialisation, market forces, economics?


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

WA said:


> Bushes Economy has been built upon the building industry- ever hear not to put all of ones eggs in 1 basket. Bush has had plenty of time to build a broader base for the American economy, but has neglected it for a war.


These statements just totally disqualify any other economic comment you made.

You really think the President controls the product mix of the entire US Economy?

What do you think this is, Canada?


----------



## brokencycle (Jan 11, 2008)

WA said:


> Plumbers and electians are good jobs when they are available, but now we have thousands of extras with no jobs because the new housing is kinda history for perhaps ten years. What kinds of jobs will these people get that have a worthy wage? If you were a plumber for 15 years in the new houseing industry making $25hr and there are no more jobs and you have been buying a house for ten years- where are you going to find another job? McDonalds for $10hr? Walmart for $8hr? How are you going to make the house payments? How many people are in this boat today? Loose the house and their name is in the mud. They followed the rules for the American dream only to find out the "experts" where not watching out for them and people in government were trying to stay popular. And economist don't know what they are talking about. When I was boy there were many jobs that had not been exported yet that paid well. If one part of the economy was down there were several dozen others that could give you a job. The roses still had thorns back then, but not so big and so many.


Do you really believe the housing market is done for 10 years? Please, that was just an adjustment by the market because homes were overvalued. Plus, the bad mortgage issue: companies have written off less money in bad mortgages than is traded on the NYSE everyday. House prices will be back on the rise in no time.


----------



## marlinspike (Jun 4, 2007)

brokencycle said:


> I don't know of any conservative who was pro increasing gas mileage standards or more ethanol. Republicans, yes, especially Republicans from corn growing states. A Republican does not equal conservative, just like a Democrat does not equal liberal.


You're right of course, but, on these forums, liberal is all too often used in place of Democrat, so I've resorted to doing the same.


----------



## marlinspike (Jun 4, 2007)

YoungEconomist said:


> If people really had a problem with outsourcing, then they would pay a little more and buy products that were produced domestically.


I do! Well, I'll buy non-American products if they are better and made in a country with comparable labor/environmental/safety/taxation/subsidy laws (or some mix, i.e. I'm willing to buy a made in Germany product even though their employers don't have to worry about paying for health care because of the heightened tax rates etc.)

As a result, my stuff doesn't break and is extremely high quality. While it seems more expensive, it's cheaper in the long run (things do eventually break, even high quality things, but when the things are made in America you can replace the broken part rather than the entire unit). However, it is getting very hard to find such goods. Normally I have to result to the industrial sector (for instance, my desk lamp is made by Electrix...thing is awesome though)


----------



## brokencycle (Jan 11, 2008)

marlinspike said:


> I do! Well, I'll buy non-American products if they are better and made in a country with comparable labor/environmental/safety/taxation/subsidy laws (or some mix, i.e. I'm willing to buy a made in Germany product even though their employers don't have to worry about paying for health care because of the heightened tax rates etc.)
> 
> As a result, my stuff doesn't break and is extremely high quality. While it seems more expensive, it's cheaper in the long run (things do eventually break, even high quality things, but when the things are made in America you can replace the broken part rather than the entire unit). However, it is getting very hard to find such goods. Normally I have to result to the industrial sector (for instance, my desk lamp is made by Electrix...thing is awesome though)


Except cars... these days if your window breaks you have to buy a whole kit for $200 to fix a $5 part. =(


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

ksinc said:


> These statements just totally disqualify any other economic comment you made.


Not really, because the President has some power to guide as does both houses of Congress. I'm surprised you don't know more about economy and politics, and economic history. Back in the 60's I became interested in economics and one of my middle school teachers (69-70), who used to teach it in college for a prof., taught it to us 8th graders, so much of what he said has happened again, perhaps twice. History can repeat itself and you can make lots of money paying attention to economic history. Economy profet has a lot to do with social thinking. Cycle


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

brokencycle said:


> Do you really believe the housing market is done for 10 years? Please, that was just an adjustment by the market because homes were overvalued. Plus, the bad mortgage issue: companies have written off less money in bad mortgages than is traded on the NYSE everyday. House prices will be back on the rise in no time.


I've seen worse. Maybe it is just a little dip. How much money is there to borrow? How much money should we be allowed to borrow? And from who? After the depression there were laws installed to prevent over borrowing, which are long gone. There is more to the picture than you think.


----------



## fenway (May 2, 2006)

When I was a kid, we didn't have a snowblower (too expensive - made in U.S.). We had one window airconditioner in my parent's room and all piled in and slept on the floor on hot nights (too expensive - made in the U.S.). We had one TV in the living room for us to share (too expensive - made in U.S.). There were many other things that we did not have that everyone has now now. Guess why?

Have we mortgaged our future and our children's future for stuff? If so, is this necessarily a bad thing?


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

WA said:


> Not really, because the President has some power to guide as does both houses of Congress. I'm surprised you don't know more about economy and politics, and economic history. Back in the 60's I became interested in economics and one of my middle school teachers (69-70), who used to teach it in college for a prof., taught it to us 8th graders, so much of what he said has happened again, perhaps twice. History can repeat itself and you can make lots of money paying attention to economic history. Economy profet has a lot to do with social thinking. Cycle


You're kidding, right?


----------



## brokencycle (Jan 11, 2008)

WA said:


> I've seen worse. Maybe it is just a little dip. How much money is there to borrow? How much money should we be allowed to borrow? And from who? After the depression there were laws installed to prevent over borrowing, which are long gone. There is more to the picture than you think.


Those homes that have been forclosed are already being resold. The WSJ had an article today talking about a big auction for houses in San Diego, LA, and Orange County, where thousands of foreclosed homes have already been resold at rates that the buyers can afford. If you take out a mortgage that has a higher monthly payment than your monthly earnings, you are asking for trouble. So the banks take losses, and the homes are already going back out to people. I'm fairly certain the majority of foreclosed homes were investment tools by people looking to turn around and sell them to make money.

I feel bad for people who have lost their homes, but as I said, if you take out a mortgage you can't afford, you're playing with fire.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

brokencycle said:


> Those homes that have been forclosed are already being resold. The WSJ had an article today talking about a big auction for houses in San Diego, LA, and Orange County, where thousands of foreclosed homes have already been resold at rates that the buyers can afford. If you take out a mortgage that has a higher monthly payment than your monthly earnings, you are asking for trouble. So the banks take losses, and the homes are already going back out to people. I'm fairly certain the majority of foreclosed homes were investment tools by people looking to turn around and sell them to make money.
> 
> I feel bad for people who have lost their homes, but as I said, if you take out a mortgage you can't afford, you're playing with fire.


Yes, that is supposed to be the majority.

I recently heard that there are currently approx. 4 million homes in inventory and a normal number is more like 1 million. I've also heard that as many as 70% were 2nd homes that people lied about and said not only were they first homes, but that they were first-time home-buyers to qualify for the sub-prime incentives. I also heard one of the big contributors to the problem is that checking to see if someone already has a mortgage is a very simple thing for a mortgage company to do and they just didn't check in most of these cases. I'm not sure if that's true or not.

If only I could remember what I learned in the 8th grade ...

I also wonder why Bush put all his eggs in this basket? That seems like a stupid decision for him to make ... We all know the President gets up everyday and decides what percent of GDP each industry will be. I wonder why he's not growing a broader economic base?


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

brokencycle said:


> I feel bad for people who have lost their homes, but as I said, if you take out a mortgage you can't afford, you're playing with fire.


Why would anyone take out a loan if they can afford the house? A house loan is a 30-40 year chance where you may loose jobs several times. Why would anyone pay interest rates on a loan if you can pay cash for the house? The loan lets people afford the house over time- not the other way around. Every loan is playing with fire.


----------



## brokencycle (Jan 11, 2008)

ksinc said:


> Yes, that is supposed to be the majority.
> 
> I also wonder why Bush put all his eggs in this basket? That seems like a stupid decision for him to make ... We all know the President gets up everyday and decides what percent of GDP each industry will be. I wonder why he's not growing a broader economic base?


He also comes over and decides what I'm going to wear every day too.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

ksinc said:


> You're kidding, right?


Back in those days the dollar was still on the Gold standard.

Look at Jimmy Carters disaster. You think Government didn't have anything to do with that? You think Reagans policies didn't have anything to do with economy? There must be a lot about the economy that you didn't learn. What did you have for proffessors- hippies? From one generation to next the lessons are different in many subjects. Social thinking (ever changing) has a lot to do with who gets voted in (taxes and laws). The guy before Greenspan- Paul Volcker set some of the rules for change that Reagan allowed. Carter didn't allow Volcker to what he would have done. If somebody else had gotten in there instead of Paul Volcker resent economic history would be way different. And another 4 years of Carter would have created a considerably worse disaster. Politics makes a world of difference with the economy. Even how laws are written can make a huge difference. You should have been around through the whole 70's. Come to think of it your economic veiws are like there is no government, taxes, laws, etc.- we don't live in that world. What that teacher taught about economic history repeating itself did so with Bush Sr. about 15-20 years after that class. History shows that people are always learning something new, but people before had already learned thosw lessons, sometimes the hardway. It is sort of like fishing, if you know that the reds (salmon) go past this point in july, why would anybody be out there to caught reds in January, April, or even June? We all get caught up in the details, but like a painter we all need to step back for an overal view; Economic History is an overal view.


----------



## brokencycle (Jan 11, 2008)

WA said:


> Why would anyone take out a loan if they can afford the house? A house loan is a 30-40 year chance where you may loose jobs several times. Why would anyone pay interest rates on a loan if you can pay cash for the house? The loan lets people afford the house over time- not the other way around. Every loan is playing with fire.


Why people would do it? I don't know - they're stupid? They figured the value of the house would rise faster than the interest they pay, so they could make money?

I don't think a loan is always playing with fire. If you're in a stable job you should be fine, especially if you have two income earners.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

brokencycle said:


> He also comes over and decides what I'm going to wear every day too.


Well, I'm guessing he gets that right!


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

WA said:


> Why would anyone take out a loan if they can afford the house? A house loan is a 30-40 year chance where you may loose jobs several times. Why would anyone pay interest rates on a loan if you can pay cash for the house? The loan lets people afford the house over time- not the other way around. Every loan is playing with fire.





brokencycle said:


> Why people would do it? I don't know - they're stupid? They figured the value of the house would rise faster than the interest they pay, so they could make money?
> 
> I don't think a loan is always playing with fire. If you're in a stable job you should be fine, especially if you have two income earners.


When I was in the 9th grade we had this guy come in and teach us about financial leverage. It was all a bunch of crazy talk - ROE this; ROA that; ROI the other thing. He was a nut. Fortunately, I forgot most of it; though I do remember he wore a bow-tie with his ocbd. Anyone remember when you could drink the water that came out of the tap in the kitchen?

OTOH it could be the valium-bourbon coctails talking ...


----------



## brokencycle (Jan 11, 2008)

ksinc said:


> When I was in the 9th grade we had this guy come in and teach us about financial leverage. It was all a bunch of crazy talk - ROE this; ROA that; ROI the other thing. He was a nut. Fortunately, I forgot most of it; though I do remember he wore a bow-tie with his ocbd. Anyone remember when you could drink the water that came out of the tap in the kitchen?
> 
> OTOH it could be the valium-bourbon coctails talking ...


You still can, but you'll die of cancer like everything else. Like how getting sun will give you skin cancer, but not getting enough sun leads to vitamin d deficiencies that lead to various types of cancer.

I suggest you switch to even harder beverages just to make sure you forget any such nonsense.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

brokencycle said:


> Why people would do it? I don't know - they're stupid? They figured the value of the house would rise faster than the interest they pay, so they could make money?
> 
> I don't think a loan is always playing with fire. If you're in a stable job you should be fine, especially if you have two income earners.


#1 reason to buy a house- why throw away your money in rent? #2 reason- eventually you are not paying money every month to live somewhere, except for the taxs. #3 reason- when you get to old to take care of yourself, and medical bills start showing up because the body declines; selling the house will pay for many of those bills. #1 investment you should have is owning your own house above all other investments.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

ksinc said:


> Anyone remember when you could drink the water that came out of the tap in the kitchen?


Yes! About 35 years ago. Or, maybe it was about 25 years ago. The city had two waters sources and one became a city park. The second one, which the other half of the city had been using ended up being used all over town, anyway, one day I opened the tap and the water in the glass tasted terrible and has never been good since. After that sometimes I would drive into the mountains an get some good clean wonderful tasting water. There are so many people around anymore I'm not even sure mountain water is safe. A fews years ago I was asking a forest ranger about the water, he's from NY if I remember correctly, he asked, You drink wild water?! Never heard of wild water before. And if you ask me city water is wild water with all the chemicals in it.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

WA said:


> #1 reason to buy a house- why throw away your money in rent? #2 reason- eventually you are not paying money every month to live somewhere, except for the taxs. #3 reason- when you get to old to take care of yourself, and medical bills start showing up because the body declines; selling the house will pay for many of those bills. #1 investment you should have is owning your own house above all other investments.


We do agree that owning a home is usually the #1 asset and priority most people can/should acquire. The exception would be owning a business IMHO, but I think those people can figure out the home thing. In my own case, I owned a business for 10 years before I owned a home.

For everyone else we should be preaching be debt-free, start saving and buy a home; not investing in stocks.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

ksinc said:


> We do agree that owning a home is usually the #1 asset and priority most people can/should acquire. The exception would be owning a business IMHO, but I think those people can figure out the home thing. In my own case, I owned a business for 10 years before I owned a home.
> 
> For everyone else we should be preaching be debt-free, start saving and buy a home; not investing in stocks.


I think we agree quit abit about economics. I became interested when I was 9 years old. I would ask people who consistently made money from investments how they decided to buy and sell. These people were few and far apart, but, cherry picked. And then there is the reading of a few carefully picked books, and only certain chapters. Unnecessary knowlege is a hindrance. In sixth grade in PE this one boy his father taught economics in college and demonstrated some of what he was teaching by buying stocks or commodities, or whatever, and double his money each time per quarter. Read a few articles in the media. When you read what can be done then you set up personal guide lines to do that or better. And, avoid, like the plauge, the imitators. With imitators the bottom line is in the red to often, or they are fruads. Schools often teach theroies and try to back it up, sometimes with useless babble. When you see the bottom line in the red the only reason to look at that is to see what not to do.

Here is a thought. This lady wrote about investing (in the 70's?). She writes about the gnp being well below what it should be. Therefore there is a catch up coming. Reagan had a lot to do with allowing this catch up. The Democrats set that tax up that Bush Sr. foolishly signed in and recession sets in. Then both houses came into Republicans hands and the tax was gone. The end of Clintons Presidency I think was the end of gnp 'catch up'. My belief now is to ride the crest of ggp (ggp=gross global products; gnp=gross national products) to the top, were talking about making billions or trillions. I think this world economy has a long way to go to catch up to normal. If you look at the dow jones graph throught the whole sevenities and then look at it after Reagans economy took off- normal is somewhere between those two in the climbing rate, perhaps half way (of course this depends on population growth).


----------



## a tailor (May 16, 2005)

YoungEconomist said:


> The first half of the statement is a little misguided, but the second half is a point not made often enough. Craftsmanship is something that, for some reason, isn't valued in america much. What many people don't realize is that Plumbers, Electricians, Carpenters, et cetera are actually in great demand, and typically, don't need a bachelor's degree. These are careers that are obviously not in danger of being out-sourced.
> 
> If people really had a problem with outsourcing, then they would pay a little more and buy products that were produced domestically. The truth is that most people aren't willing to pay more for a product, even if it is higher quality (which is may or may not be). Call it rational ignorance; call it apathy. The simple fact remains, companies want to maximize profits. They do that by selling to consumers, to whom they are ultimately responsible to. Firms simple charge as much as they can without driving too many customers away, while producing for a low a cost as possible. In some cases, that is what they are legally obligated to do.
> 
> Plus, one the whole, trade is beneficial for both countries (although with a mix of people who gain and people who lose in each).


but do we need a few million new plumbers and carpenters and electricians? add a million nurses and a million tailors. and that should take care of the all folks that lost all those good paying jobs right? 
now what do we do all with the high school grads that are not going to collage. but even the collage grads are having a difficult time finding jobs that pay enough to pay off their debts.


----------



## brokencycle (Jan 11, 2008)

WA said:


> #1 reason to buy a house- why throw away your money in rent? #2 reason- eventually you are not paying money every month to live somewhere, except for the taxs. #3 reason- when you get to old to take care of yourself, and medical bills start showing up because the body declines; selling the house will pay for many of those bills. #1 investment you should have is owning your own house above all other investments.


I think a house is a good investment, but buying a house you can't afford hoping to make money is stupid. My point is not that all loans are dumb or even playing with fire, but there is a group of people who are buying things they can't afford, and it is not limited to houses.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

brokencycle said:


> I think a house is a good investment, but buying a house you can't afford hoping to make money is stupid. My point is not that all loans are dumb or even playing with fire, but there is a group of people who are buying things they can't afford, and it is not limited to houses.


No doubt there are a lot of people with loans that they shouldn't have. Why are college educated "responsible" bankers loaning out this money? And so much of this loan money comes from China- do you feel comfortable with that? But how do you explain this? A town in CO got a new industry that had good paying jobs and many houses were built but the business went belly up or moved to Mexico, whatever. Nobody could pay off those new houses. Did anybody make an error here? Could it happen to you today? All of these people had to move here and there across the country to find new jobs, most if not all lost those houses. A Tailor makes a very good point. This is interesting reading https://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=25678 Something about Greenspan, he is very much for exporting jobs as long as there are better jobs that people can step up to. Indeed many did, but some found themselve with lower paying jobs. Of course, Greenspan wouldn't allow national security jobs to be exported, which covers many types of work you might never think of.

Cicero said, "To be ignorant of what occurred before you were born is to remain always a child." Probably 90% of houses that are owned were paid off by people who had no idea if they could make the payments for 20-40 years on those loans. Chance is part of life and a lot of hope needs to go with it.


----------

