Maybe there is hope for Walmart.
- Thread starter Donald
- Start date
- Status
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Originally Posted By: mechanicx
Originally Posted By: javacontour
As long as you plan to live your beliefs without imposing them on others most folks would be willing to live and let live. However, when one starts talking about so and so has enough the should... then they are saying their opinion overides the opinion of others. That infringes upon the freedoms of those deemed to have enou have enough.
Ironically, I agree that it gets old when folks try to assert their opinions as the only correct ones. That is exactly what is being done when one tries to tell another they have enough or they should pay more.
But isn't Walmart or where ever else telling its employees how much they can have that $9/hr or so is enough? And aren't consumer to a lesser extent telling others what they can get if they demand the lowest price over everything else, literally picking a chinese version of a product to save only a few pennies?
Seems to me always someone is trying or is dictating what someone else can have, and the higher up on the economic totem pole the more they can and do it.
Originally Posted By: javacontour
As long as you plan to live your beliefs without imposing them on others most folks would be willing to live and let live. However, when one starts talking about so and so has enough the should... then they are saying their opinion overides the opinion of others. That infringes upon the freedoms of those deemed to have enou have enough.
Ironically, I agree that it gets old when folks try to assert their opinions as the only correct ones. That is exactly what is being done when one tries to tell another they have enough or they should pay more.
But isn't Walmart or where ever else telling its employees how much they can have that $9/hr or so is enough? And aren't consumer to a lesser extent telling others what they can get if they demand the lowest price over everything else, literally picking a chinese version of a product to save only a few pennies?
Seems to me always someone is trying or is dictating what someone else can have, and the higher up on the economic totem pole the more they can and do it.
- Joined
- Dec 30, 2006
- Messages
- 29,558
Originally Posted By: DBMaster
I am going to go off on a slight tangent. It is related to minimum wage and all that garbage that has been in the news again. I believe (I said "I.") that someone who is willing to put in good effort and be a reliable worker should be able to make a living at ANY job they perform. What does that mean? It means that "minimum wage" might need to be $20/hour. That's just a rather arbitrary number I am throwing out there. That way, everyone willing to work feels that it is worthwhile to do so.
I totally agree. I think the problem is,that no one wants to work their fingers to the bone and still be below the poverty level. Not everyone had the good life handed to them,had the chance to go to a prestigious college,etc. Some have to work whatever jobs they can get to sustain life. Anyone willing to put in a hard day`s would should be rightfully compensated. I completely respect anyone who`s willing to work.
I am going to go off on a slight tangent. It is related to minimum wage and all that garbage that has been in the news again. I believe (I said "I.") that someone who is willing to put in good effort and be a reliable worker should be able to make a living at ANY job they perform. What does that mean? It means that "minimum wage" might need to be $20/hour. That's just a rather arbitrary number I am throwing out there. That way, everyone willing to work feels that it is worthwhile to do so.
I totally agree. I think the problem is,that no one wants to work their fingers to the bone and still be below the poverty level. Not everyone had the good life handed to them,had the chance to go to a prestigious college,etc. Some have to work whatever jobs they can get to sustain life. Anyone willing to put in a hard day`s would should be rightfully compensated. I completely respect anyone who`s willing to work.
Last edited:
I did not realize WalMart forced folks to work for a wage.
Why does someone in the US have more of a right to a job than someone in China or Mexico or any place else?
Why don't the factory workers in other natiins have the right to work and earn for their families? By saying we should produce products via narrowly defined labor policies one is saying others don't have the right to their jobs.
I have no illusions that business is more ethical than any other organization. But then I hold all organizations, corporate, government and others in the same regard. They are all staffed by humans. Therefore, they are morally equal.
Originally Posted By: mechanicx
Originally Posted By: javacontour
As long as you plan to live your beliefs without imposing them on others most folks would be willing to live and let live. However, when one starts talking about so and so has enough the should... then they are saying their opinion overides the opinion of others. That infringes upon the freedoms of those deemed to have enou have enough.
Ironically, I agree that it gets old when folks try to assert their opinions as the only correct ones. That is exactly what is being done when one tries to tell another they have enough or they should pay more.
But isn't Walmart or where ever else telling its employees how much they can have that $9/hr or so is enough? And aren't consumer to a lesser extent telling others what they can get if they demand the lowest price over everything else, literally picking a chinese version of a product to save only a few pennies?
Seems to me always someone is trying or is dictating what someone else can have, and the higher up on the economic totem pole the more they can and do it.
Why does someone in the US have more of a right to a job than someone in China or Mexico or any place else?
Why don't the factory workers in other natiins have the right to work and earn for their families? By saying we should produce products via narrowly defined labor policies one is saying others don't have the right to their jobs.
I have no illusions that business is more ethical than any other organization. But then I hold all organizations, corporate, government and others in the same regard. They are all staffed by humans. Therefore, they are morally equal.
Originally Posted By: mechanicx
Originally Posted By: javacontour
As long as you plan to live your beliefs without imposing them on others most folks would be willing to live and let live. However, when one starts talking about so and so has enough the should... then they are saying their opinion overides the opinion of others. That infringes upon the freedoms of those deemed to have enou have enough.
Ironically, I agree that it gets old when folks try to assert their opinions as the only correct ones. That is exactly what is being done when one tries to tell another they have enough or they should pay more.
But isn't Walmart or where ever else telling its employees how much they can have that $9/hr or so is enough? And aren't consumer to a lesser extent telling others what they can get if they demand the lowest price over everything else, literally picking a chinese version of a product to save only a few pennies?
Seems to me always someone is trying or is dictating what someone else can have, and the higher up on the economic totem pole the more they can and do it.
Originally Posted By: javacontour
I did not realize WalMart forced folks to work for a wage.
Why does someone in the US have more of a right to a job than someone in China or Mexico or any place else?
Why don't the factory workers in other natiins have the right to work and earn for their families? By saying we should produce products via narrowly defined labor policies one is saying others don't have the right to their jobs.
I have no illusions that business is more ethical than any other organization. But then I hold all organizations, corporate, government and others in the same regard. They are all staffed by humans. Therefore, they are morally equal.
What? For starters workers in China and Mexico shouldn't have as much right to a job to supply the US market. China and Mexico can have all the jobs they want supplying their own market. So I guess you're saying they should have jobs supplying their consumer market plus many more jobs supplying the US market. And US workers should not be able to supply their own market or have anything.
I did not realize WalMart forced folks to work for a wage.
Why does someone in the US have more of a right to a job than someone in China or Mexico or any place else?
Why don't the factory workers in other natiins have the right to work and earn for their families? By saying we should produce products via narrowly defined labor policies one is saying others don't have the right to their jobs.
I have no illusions that business is more ethical than any other organization. But then I hold all organizations, corporate, government and others in the same regard. They are all staffed by humans. Therefore, they are morally equal.
What? For starters workers in China and Mexico shouldn't have as much right to a job to supply the US market. China and Mexico can have all the jobs they want supplying their own market. So I guess you're saying they should have jobs supplying their consumer market plus many more jobs supplying the US market. And US workers should not be able to supply their own market or have anything.
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Originally Posted By: javacontour
I did not realize WalMart forced folks to work for a wage.
Why does someone in the US have more of a right to a job than someone in China or Mexico or any place else?
Why don't the factory workers in other natiins have the right to work and earn for their families? By saying we should produce products via narrowly defined labor policies one is saying others don't have the right to their jobs.
I have no illusions that business is more ethical than any other organization. But then I hold all organizations, corporate, government and others in the same regard. They are all staffed by humans. Therefore, they are morally equal.
If the world was perfect and every country competed on a level financial playing field what you argue might make sense. But it isn't and we don't. American/Canadian jobs are sent to China or Mexico because labour there is cheap. It isn't about who has "more rights" to the job and you know that. It is about the bottom line and profits and exploiting that cheap labour bolsters those profits at the expense of the North American, [censored] at the expense of the first world job market!
This isn't some Utopian pipe-dream where there are enough jobs for everyone and fairies float around sprinkling pixie dust on the workers. When a job goes to China it isn't because "they deserve a job too". I'm sure the worker in question already had a job, doing something else....
No, that job went to China because they could pay that worker $0.50/hour to do it.
The reality is that the United States, Canada, Germany, England....etc, these are EXPENSIVE places to live. A LOT more expensive than China or Mexico. That is the driving factor behind wages having to be higher here and that, in turn, is the driving factor behind the companies that employ these people out-sourcing their jobs and robbing our economy of employment opportunities for people who, to use your terminology, have the right to a job just as much as that Mexican or Chinese person. But in this case, the scales are tipped toward the Mexican and Chinese people because they can and will work for a small fraction of the wage and are still able to provide for their families due to the cost of living in their respective countries.
This whole system is jaded. The driving factor is profit and whatever helps with that bottom-line gets exploited. If this means an imbalance in favour of 3rd world labour over 1st world labour, so be it. That's how this crooked machine operates and how we encourage it to operate with our buying habits. Because one of the few things we can leverage to keep this in-check is shopping based on country of origin instead of price. But since the majority of consumers don't shop this way, there's no hope of any progress here. That is the sad truth.
I did not realize WalMart forced folks to work for a wage.
Why does someone in the US have more of a right to a job than someone in China or Mexico or any place else?
Why don't the factory workers in other natiins have the right to work and earn for their families? By saying we should produce products via narrowly defined labor policies one is saying others don't have the right to their jobs.
I have no illusions that business is more ethical than any other organization. But then I hold all organizations, corporate, government and others in the same regard. They are all staffed by humans. Therefore, they are morally equal.
If the world was perfect and every country competed on a level financial playing field what you argue might make sense. But it isn't and we don't. American/Canadian jobs are sent to China or Mexico because labour there is cheap. It isn't about who has "more rights" to the job and you know that. It is about the bottom line and profits and exploiting that cheap labour bolsters those profits at the expense of the North American, [censored] at the expense of the first world job market!
This isn't some Utopian pipe-dream where there are enough jobs for everyone and fairies float around sprinkling pixie dust on the workers. When a job goes to China it isn't because "they deserve a job too". I'm sure the worker in question already had a job, doing something else....
The reality is that the United States, Canada, Germany, England....etc, these are EXPENSIVE places to live. A LOT more expensive than China or Mexico. That is the driving factor behind wages having to be higher here and that, in turn, is the driving factor behind the companies that employ these people out-sourcing their jobs and robbing our economy of employment opportunities for people who, to use your terminology, have the right to a job just as much as that Mexican or Chinese person. But in this case, the scales are tipped toward the Mexican and Chinese people because they can and will work for a small fraction of the wage and are still able to provide for their families due to the cost of living in their respective countries.
This whole system is jaded. The driving factor is profit and whatever helps with that bottom-line gets exploited. If this means an imbalance in favour of 3rd world labour over 1st world labour, so be it. That's how this crooked machine operates and how we encourage it to operate with our buying habits. Because one of the few things we can leverage to keep this in-check is shopping based on country of origin instead of price. But since the majority of consumers don't shop this way, there's no hope of any progress here. That is the sad truth.
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
If the world was perfect and every country competed on a level financial playing field what you argue might make sense.
That's how this crooked machine operates and how we encourage it to operate with our buying habits. Because one of the few things we can leverage to keep this in-check is shopping based on country of origin instead of price. But since the majority of consumers don't shop this way, there's no hope of any progress here. That is the sad truth.
This is it. We did it to ourselves by demanding the lowest priced junk and then wanting even more cheaper!!
If the world was perfect and every country competed on a level financial playing field what you argue might make sense.
That's how this crooked machine operates and how we encourage it to operate with our buying habits. Because one of the few things we can leverage to keep this in-check is shopping based on country of origin instead of price. But since the majority of consumers don't shop this way, there's no hope of any progress here. That is the sad truth.
This is it. We did it to ourselves by demanding the lowest priced junk and then wanting even more cheaper!!
I think you nailed it. So as long as folks want cheap stuff, you are not going to get a bunch of $20/hour factory jobs.
Some have said that others in the world don't have the right to supply the US with goods or services.
Really?
Did we not come about as a nation and grow to the prosperity we have because we did just that? We were an important colony for England because we had trees and other resources they lacked.
We benefited from the industrial revolution and once the rest of Europe and Japan was left largely in rubble after WWII, we supplied the world with just about everything.
Yet folks now want to say that others don't have the right to supply us after we became rich and prosperous by supplying the world?
Seems like a double standard to me.
The problem is us. We think we have a right to our standard of living, and nothing should threaten it. The problem is, to maintain our standard of living, we may have to do different things than we did in the past.
Either that, or it's really not sustainable and things will revert to what we can sustain.
An empire in decline isn't a fun place to be. But wishing the rest of the world isn't out there trying to get their piece of the pie is just sticking your head in the sand.
Originally Posted By: DBMaster
How about a twist on title of this thread?
WE are the problem. Wal Mart is a symptom.
Discuss...
Some have said that others in the world don't have the right to supply the US with goods or services.
Really?
Did we not come about as a nation and grow to the prosperity we have because we did just that? We were an important colony for England because we had trees and other resources they lacked.
We benefited from the industrial revolution and once the rest of Europe and Japan was left largely in rubble after WWII, we supplied the world with just about everything.
Yet folks now want to say that others don't have the right to supply us after we became rich and prosperous by supplying the world?
Seems like a double standard to me.
The problem is us. We think we have a right to our standard of living, and nothing should threaten it. The problem is, to maintain our standard of living, we may have to do different things than we did in the past.
Either that, or it's really not sustainable and things will revert to what we can sustain.
An empire in decline isn't a fun place to be. But wishing the rest of the world isn't out there trying to get their piece of the pie is just sticking your head in the sand.
Originally Posted By: DBMaster
How about a twist on title of this thread?
WE are the problem. Wal Mart is a symptom.
Discuss...
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
javacontour:
One only has to take a glance 'cross the pond at Germany to see that this standard of living is perfectly sustainable. They don't have a multi-trillion dollar deficit. But they have strict rules in regulations in place with respect to industry that ENSURE that this is the case.
And as you noted, this country was a giant rubble pile after WW2, and then half of it was under Soviet control until the fall of the wall, yet look how far they've come!!
Btw, I don't think mechanicx was advocating that nobody outside of the United States and Canada should be allowed to supply us with goods. Rather, I think the argument is that Canadians and Americans shouldn't have to compete for their jobs with the Chinese and Mexicans. Given the rather massive rift in wages, I think that's a rather logical point. The cost of living in the first world DEMANDS a higher wage in order for somebody to be able to live. Forcing that person to compete with somebody who can live off of $0.50/hour is ridiculous.
One only has to take a glance 'cross the pond at Germany to see that this standard of living is perfectly sustainable. They don't have a multi-trillion dollar deficit. But they have strict rules in regulations in place with respect to industry that ENSURE that this is the case.
And as you noted, this country was a giant rubble pile after WW2, and then half of it was under Soviet control until the fall of the wall, yet look how far they've come!!
Btw, I don't think mechanicx was advocating that nobody outside of the United States and Canada should be allowed to supply us with goods. Rather, I think the argument is that Canadians and Americans shouldn't have to compete for their jobs with the Chinese and Mexicans. Given the rather massive rift in wages, I think that's a rather logical point. The cost of living in the first world DEMANDS a higher wage in order for somebody to be able to live. Forcing that person to compete with somebody who can live off of $0.50/hour is ridiculous.
But again, no one forces folks to buy goods made in those places.
Wal*Mart is the whipping boy, just because they are biggest. It's not like Target, K-Mart, Mejer or any others are buying their goods from different sources. They get them from the very same suppliers. Most likely made in the very same factories.
It's not just wages. (And China will price themselves out if it's based on labor and shipping costs.) We have environmental rules that almost guarantee that some jobs are going to move to places without those rules.
Don't get me wrong, I don't want to live like we had it in the 1970's. On the other hand, I think we handled 99.44% of it, and now the powers to be want to address the far more difficult and expensive issues.
If it doesn't make economic sense to do so, that work will be moved abroad.
There are no easy solutions. If you make minimum wage $20/hour guess what? There will be even fewer jobs here as even more goes overseas.
My stepson is going through that right now. Due to the new health care laws, companies are cutting hours so they are not forced to provide health care under the affordable health care act. So folks who had full time gigs will probably find they are working 20 hours here, 20 hours there and will be forced, by law to buy the mandated health policy.
I'm not saying that to be political, I'm saying that time after time, the solutions provided by the crowd inside the beltway come with unintended consequences.
So be careful what we wish for.
Wal*Mart is the whipping boy, just because they are biggest. It's not like Target, K-Mart, Mejer or any others are buying their goods from different sources. They get them from the very same suppliers. Most likely made in the very same factories.
It's not just wages. (And China will price themselves out if it's based on labor and shipping costs.) We have environmental rules that almost guarantee that some jobs are going to move to places without those rules.
Don't get me wrong, I don't want to live like we had it in the 1970's. On the other hand, I think we handled 99.44% of it, and now the powers to be want to address the far more difficult and expensive issues.
If it doesn't make economic sense to do so, that work will be moved abroad.
There are no easy solutions. If you make minimum wage $20/hour guess what? There will be even fewer jobs here as even more goes overseas.
My stepson is going through that right now. Due to the new health care laws, companies are cutting hours so they are not forced to provide health care under the affordable health care act. So folks who had full time gigs will probably find they are working 20 hours here, 20 hours there and will be forced, by law to buy the mandated health policy.
I'm not saying that to be political, I'm saying that time after time, the solutions provided by the crowd inside the beltway come with unintended consequences.
So be careful what we wish for.
Interesting. Would import duties equivalent to the cost differential of producing in a different country be something you are recommending?
Here's something that goes back to my college economics classes. In a truly GLOBAL economy each region supplies goods/services for which it has a competitive advantage. This does work on the assumption that if cheap labor is your competitive advantage the quality of output is similar to the regions that lack that advantage. That would mean huge changes. It is a pipe dream, actually. It would mean, literally, giving up those industries in which you cannot compete.
Let's assume we don't have all these petty, regional conflicts and that we don't see certain industries as being important to "national security," however you define it. Again, a pipe dream. But, the result could conceivably be a much better world economy for everyone. Instead of propping up industries that are no longer viable for your region you would focus on developing and improving those industries in which your region excels. The U.S. still has very big advantages in industries that do not rely on unskilled/semi-skilled labor.
If, someday, we could look at the world as the true "global village," which it is, we would ALL be much better off. But, alas, it isn't going to happen.
Here's something that goes back to my college economics classes. In a truly GLOBAL economy each region supplies goods/services for which it has a competitive advantage. This does work on the assumption that if cheap labor is your competitive advantage the quality of output is similar to the regions that lack that advantage. That would mean huge changes. It is a pipe dream, actually. It would mean, literally, giving up those industries in which you cannot compete.
Let's assume we don't have all these petty, regional conflicts and that we don't see certain industries as being important to "national security," however you define it. Again, a pipe dream. But, the result could conceivably be a much better world economy for everyone. Instead of propping up industries that are no longer viable for your region you would focus on developing and improving those industries in which your region excels. The U.S. still has very big advantages in industries that do not rely on unskilled/semi-skilled labor.
If, someday, we could look at the world as the true "global village," which it is, we would ALL be much better off. But, alas, it isn't going to happen.
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Originally Posted By: javacontour
But again, no one forces folks to buy goods made in those places.
Exactly, and that's what I mentioned in my first post and what DBMaster touched on with his. The Walmart "China Effect" is simply the by-product of the blight that is "Consumer Whoreism".
If Americans truly believed in "buy American", these products wouldn't be made in China. It is that simple.
But again, no one forces folks to buy goods made in those places.
Exactly, and that's what I mentioned in my first post and what DBMaster touched on with his. The Walmart "China Effect" is simply the by-product of the blight that is "Consumer Whoreism".
If Americans truly believed in "buy American", these products wouldn't be made in China. It is that simple.
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Originally Posted By: DBMaster
If, someday, we could look at the world as the true "global village," which it is, we would ALL be much better off. But, alas, it isn't going to happen.
It'll never happen. Far too much corruption, posturing and sources of (potential) conflict for this to ever be realized.
That's sort of what I touched-on sarcastically with my "Utopian" remark in my first post. The world that these theories are based on and the world that we live in are two very different places.
China's devaluation of their currency to ensure that they are not only competitive, but DOMINANT on the world stage in terms of low-cost labour, used in conjunction with their shady business practices and propensity to rip-off other's R&D means that it is never going to be a "fair game".
This is why countries like Germany have the regulations in place that they do. Did you know the EU has a massive trade tariff in place against Chinese stainless steel? This is because China's method of taking over a market is to dump their product there at costs that nobody else can compete against until all of the domestic competition is out of the way and then they have the run of the market. Does that sound like a fair and honest version of "competition" to you?
If, someday, we could look at the world as the true "global village," which it is, we would ALL be much better off. But, alas, it isn't going to happen.
It'll never happen. Far too much corruption, posturing and sources of (potential) conflict for this to ever be realized.
That's sort of what I touched-on sarcastically with my "Utopian" remark in my first post. The world that these theories are based on and the world that we live in are two very different places.
China's devaluation of their currency to ensure that they are not only competitive, but DOMINANT on the world stage in terms of low-cost labour, used in conjunction with their shady business practices and propensity to rip-off other's R&D means that it is never going to be a "fair game".
This is why countries like Germany have the regulations in place that they do. Did you know the EU has a massive trade tariff in place against Chinese stainless steel? This is because China's method of taking over a market is to dump their product there at costs that nobody else can compete against until all of the domestic competition is out of the way and then they have the run of the market. Does that sound like a fair and honest version of "competition" to you?
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Originally Posted By: DBMaster
Yeah, I know it's a fantasy. Seems to me like the Chinese "stainless" steel often rusts. My guess is that they keep it cheap by skimping on the chromium content.
And even when there are tariffs in place, China will then try to skirt them
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-03-07...hilippines.html
Quote:
The EU said Chinese exporters of stainless-steel fasteners shipped them to Europe via the Philippines to dodge the 27.4 percent duty. This is the outcome of a probe that also covered Malaysia and Thailand, where the EU concluded that no Chinese circumvention took place.
The import tax “was circumvented by trans-shipment via the Philippines,” the 27-nation bloc said in a decision today in Brussels. The extension exempts two Philippine companies -- Multi-Tek Fasteners Inc. and Rosario Fasteners Corp. -- and will take effect after publication in the EU’s Official Journal within a week.
The EU renewed the trade protection against China in January 2012 for another five years to help European producers that also include Bulnava Srl of Italy, Germany’s Reisser Schraubentechnik GmbH and France’s Ugivis SA counter below-cost, or “dumped,” imports from the Asian country. The 27.4 percent levy is the maximum of three rates, which depend on the Chinese exporter. The lowest levy is 11.4 percent.
At the time, the EU also reimposed for five years anti- dumping duties as high as 23.6 percent on stainless-steel fasteners from Taiwan.
The extension of the maximum levy against China to the Philippines is the outcome of a circumvention probe that the EU began last June and will apply retroactively to imports as of that time, when the bloc also began to register shipments of stainless-steel fasteners from the Philippines.
Yeah, I know it's a fantasy. Seems to me like the Chinese "stainless" steel often rusts. My guess is that they keep it cheap by skimping on the chromium content.
And even when there are tariffs in place, China will then try to skirt them
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-03-07...hilippines.html
Quote:
The EU said Chinese exporters of stainless-steel fasteners shipped them to Europe via the Philippines to dodge the 27.4 percent duty. This is the outcome of a probe that also covered Malaysia and Thailand, where the EU concluded that no Chinese circumvention took place.
The import tax “was circumvented by trans-shipment via the Philippines,” the 27-nation bloc said in a decision today in Brussels. The extension exempts two Philippine companies -- Multi-Tek Fasteners Inc. and Rosario Fasteners Corp. -- and will take effect after publication in the EU’s Official Journal within a week.
The EU renewed the trade protection against China in January 2012 for another five years to help European producers that also include Bulnava Srl of Italy, Germany’s Reisser Schraubentechnik GmbH and France’s Ugivis SA counter below-cost, or “dumped,” imports from the Asian country. The 27.4 percent levy is the maximum of three rates, which depend on the Chinese exporter. The lowest levy is 11.4 percent.
At the time, the EU also reimposed for five years anti- dumping duties as high as 23.6 percent on stainless-steel fasteners from Taiwan.
The extension of the maximum levy against China to the Philippines is the outcome of a circumvention probe that the EU began last June and will apply retroactively to imports as of that time, when the bloc also began to register shipments of stainless-steel fasteners from the Philippines.
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
And some may find this interesting:
These are the anti-dumping methods employed by the EU:
http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/cfm/doclib_section.cfm?sec=203&langId=EN
There are 2,000 documents on file there!!!
A sample:
Quote:
1. COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 214/2013 of 11 March 2013 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain organic coated steel products originating in the People’s Republic of China
2. COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 217/2013 of 11 March 2013 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain aluminium foils in rolls originating in the People’s Republic of China
3. COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 205/2013 of 7 March 2013 extending the definitive anti-dumping duty imposed by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 2/2012 on imports of certain stainless steel fasteners and parts thereof originating in the People’s Republic of China to imports of certain stainless steel fasteners consigned from the Philippines, whether declared as originating in the Philippines
4. COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 182/2013 of 1 March 2013 making imports of crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and key components (i.e. cells and wafers) originating in or consigned from the People’s Republic of China subject to registration
5. Notice concerning a partial reopening of the anti-dumping investigation concerning imports of certain fatty alcohols and their blends originating in India, Indonesia and Malaysia
6. Notice of initiation of an anti-dumping proceeding concerning imports of solar glass originating in the People's Republic of China
7. Corrigendum of: REGULATION (EU) No 765/2012 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 13 June 2012 amending Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community
8. COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 158/2013 of 18 February 2013 reimposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain prepared or preserved citrus fruits (namely mandarins, etc.) originating in the People’s Republic of China
9. Notice of initiation of an anti-dumping proceeding concerning imports of certain seamless pipes and tubes of iron or steel, of an external diameter exceeding 406,4 mm, originating in the People's Republic of China
10. Corrigendum of: COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 1071/2012 of 14 November 2012 imposing a provisional anti-dumping duty on imports of threaded tube or pipe cast fittings, of malleable cast iron, originating in the People's Republic of China and Thailand
This is what has to be done to keep China in check.
These are the anti-dumping methods employed by the EU:
http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/cfm/doclib_section.cfm?sec=203&langId=EN
There are 2,000 documents on file there!!!
A sample:
Quote:
1. COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 214/2013 of 11 March 2013 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain organic coated steel products originating in the People’s Republic of China
2. COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 217/2013 of 11 March 2013 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain aluminium foils in rolls originating in the People’s Republic of China
3. COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 205/2013 of 7 March 2013 extending the definitive anti-dumping duty imposed by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 2/2012 on imports of certain stainless steel fasteners and parts thereof originating in the People’s Republic of China to imports of certain stainless steel fasteners consigned from the Philippines, whether declared as originating in the Philippines
4. COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 182/2013 of 1 March 2013 making imports of crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and key components (i.e. cells and wafers) originating in or consigned from the People’s Republic of China subject to registration
5. Notice concerning a partial reopening of the anti-dumping investigation concerning imports of certain fatty alcohols and their blends originating in India, Indonesia and Malaysia
6. Notice of initiation of an anti-dumping proceeding concerning imports of solar glass originating in the People's Republic of China
7. Corrigendum of: REGULATION (EU) No 765/2012 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 13 June 2012 amending Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community
8. COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 158/2013 of 18 February 2013 reimposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain prepared or preserved citrus fruits (namely mandarins, etc.) originating in the People’s Republic of China
9. Notice of initiation of an anti-dumping proceeding concerning imports of certain seamless pipes and tubes of iron or steel, of an external diameter exceeding 406,4 mm, originating in the People's Republic of China
10. Corrigendum of: COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 1071/2012 of 14 November 2012 imposing a provisional anti-dumping duty on imports of threaded tube or pipe cast fittings, of malleable cast iron, originating in the People's Republic of China and Thailand
This is what has to be done to keep China in check.
JHZR2
Staff member
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Originally Posted By: DBMaster
If, someday, we could look at the world as the true "global village," which it is, we would ALL be much better off. But, alas, it isn't going to happen.
It'll never happen. Far too much corruption, posturing and sources of (potential) conflict for this to ever be realized.
That's sort of what I touched-on sarcastically with my "Utopian" remark in my first post. The world that these theories are based on and the world that we live in are two very different places.
China's devaluation of their currency to ensure that they are not only competitive, but DOMINANT on the world stage in terms of low-cost labour, used in conjunction with their shady business practices and propensity to rip-off other's R&D means that it is never going to be a "fair game".
This is why countries like Germany have the regulations in place that they do. Did you know the EU has a massive trade tariff in place against Chinese stainless steel? This is because China's method of taking over a market is to dump their product there at costs that nobody else can compete against until all of the domestic competition is out of the way and then they have the run of the market. Does that sound like a fair and honest version of "competition" to you?
Its funny when people gripe about something like gas or copper prices, when maybe 600 million people are competing for the items in earnest.
Then go buy third world dumped goods, because they are cheap, harming the jobs and income that those 600 million or so rely upon. Turn many of those who actually produced something into retail wage slaves selling the third world dumped goods with a smile and telling everyone that they are better off.
Money flows back, and QOL increases for an additional THREE BILLION people because they are spending because they have cash flow due to actually making something. Even if only half that, you still have a total of roughly 350% of the competition that was the status quo.
Yet youve shipped your jobs away and are reliant on selling their stuff.
So the only option then is to lower your QOL to the point where you live at the same state and condition of the billions youve just enabled as your competition. And blame someone else, when your own choices created the situation at hand... Nobody to blame but ourselves, not the politicians, not the 1%ers, just us.
Sounds like a great plan to me...
Originally Posted By: DBMaster
If, someday, we could look at the world as the true "global village," which it is, we would ALL be much better off. But, alas, it isn't going to happen.
It'll never happen. Far too much corruption, posturing and sources of (potential) conflict for this to ever be realized.
That's sort of what I touched-on sarcastically with my "Utopian" remark in my first post. The world that these theories are based on and the world that we live in are two very different places.
China's devaluation of their currency to ensure that they are not only competitive, but DOMINANT on the world stage in terms of low-cost labour, used in conjunction with their shady business practices and propensity to rip-off other's R&D means that it is never going to be a "fair game".
This is why countries like Germany have the regulations in place that they do. Did you know the EU has a massive trade tariff in place against Chinese stainless steel? This is because China's method of taking over a market is to dump their product there at costs that nobody else can compete against until all of the domestic competition is out of the way and then they have the run of the market. Does that sound like a fair and honest version of "competition" to you?
Its funny when people gripe about something like gas or copper prices, when maybe 600 million people are competing for the items in earnest.
Then go buy third world dumped goods, because they are cheap, harming the jobs and income that those 600 million or so rely upon. Turn many of those who actually produced something into retail wage slaves selling the third world dumped goods with a smile and telling everyone that they are better off.
Money flows back, and QOL increases for an additional THREE BILLION people because they are spending because they have cash flow due to actually making something. Even if only half that, you still have a total of roughly 350% of the competition that was the status quo.
Yet youve shipped your jobs away and are reliant on selling their stuff.
So the only option then is to lower your QOL to the point where you live at the same state and condition of the billions youve just enabled as your competition. And blame someone else, when your own choices created the situation at hand... Nobody to blame but ourselves, not the politicians, not the 1%ers, just us.
Sounds like a great plan to me...
JHZR2
Staff member
Originally Posted By: javacontour
I did not realize WalMart forced folks to work for a wage.
Why does someone in the US have more of a right to a job than someone in China or Mexico or any place else?
Why don't the factory workers in other natiins have the right to work and earn for their families? By saying we should produce products via narrowly defined labor policies one is saying others don't have the right to their jobs.
I have no illusions that business is more ethical than any other organization. But then I hold all organizations, corporate, government and others in the same regard. They are all staffed by humans. Therefore, they are morally equal.
I can only effect the local structure and situation. That means the USA primarily, and the first world on a secondary basis.
Sure, everyone has whatever "right" that you claim, but there are finite resources and finite opportunities. When you automate, or worse, shift jobs from one local area to another, say jobs from the US to Mexico, those folks locally dont go away. The job market may or may not be able to absorb them. If it cannot absorb them into equal or better jobs (which is tending to be the case), than you just unemployed or underemployed your fellow countryman. Like taxes or not, when that unemployed or underemployed person collects a check, it comes from the taxes that others pay. The same tax pool that would pay for other things, or be a fatter pot, had the jobs not been lost. So it is a double whammy. In this interest of "right", you just pulled someone from the tax rolls, and put them on the receiving end of the wealth redistribution scheme. So not only did you reduce incume, but you increased outgo at the same time.
Of course we could remove those programs, which would force those unemployed folks to relocate to tenament slums and live at a level equal to those who received the offshored jobs. So maybe then they will all compete for their overall "right"... Of course location will be based upon taxes, regulations, etc., and so the person who once lived in the functional world will have to relocate to the third world to do this competition. or perhaps the area all around the tenament slum can become deregulated and untaxed because valuation for the land has gone to nothing, people dont care about services, etc. So then the factory can move back... And youve just reduced the lifestyle and way of life down to the lowest common denominator (third world) in a generation or two.
Its not about moral equality in the slightest. It is entirely the fact that things are indeed finite, and thus the only scenario that actually works if youre bringing all players to the game is a reduction in playing time...
I did not realize WalMart forced folks to work for a wage.
Why does someone in the US have more of a right to a job than someone in China or Mexico or any place else?
Why don't the factory workers in other natiins have the right to work and earn for their families? By saying we should produce products via narrowly defined labor policies one is saying others don't have the right to their jobs.
I have no illusions that business is more ethical than any other organization. But then I hold all organizations, corporate, government and others in the same regard. They are all staffed by humans. Therefore, they are morally equal.
I can only effect the local structure and situation. That means the USA primarily, and the first world on a secondary basis.
Sure, everyone has whatever "right" that you claim, but there are finite resources and finite opportunities. When you automate, or worse, shift jobs from one local area to another, say jobs from the US to Mexico, those folks locally dont go away. The job market may or may not be able to absorb them. If it cannot absorb them into equal or better jobs (which is tending to be the case), than you just unemployed or underemployed your fellow countryman. Like taxes or not, when that unemployed or underemployed person collects a check, it comes from the taxes that others pay. The same tax pool that would pay for other things, or be a fatter pot, had the jobs not been lost. So it is a double whammy. In this interest of "right", you just pulled someone from the tax rolls, and put them on the receiving end of the wealth redistribution scheme. So not only did you reduce incume, but you increased outgo at the same time.
Of course we could remove those programs, which would force those unemployed folks to relocate to tenament slums and live at a level equal to those who received the offshored jobs. So maybe then they will all compete for their overall "right"... Of course location will be based upon taxes, regulations, etc., and so the person who once lived in the functional world will have to relocate to the third world to do this competition. or perhaps the area all around the tenament slum can become deregulated and untaxed because valuation for the land has gone to nothing, people dont care about services, etc. So then the factory can move back... And youve just reduced the lifestyle and way of life down to the lowest common denominator (third world) in a generation or two.
Its not about moral equality in the slightest. It is entirely the fact that things are indeed finite, and thus the only scenario that actually works if youre bringing all players to the game is a reduction in playing time...
- Status
