Neither party stands with American manufacturing... both parties have spoken as if they do.

Trump's claims about supporting American workers are bullshit, pure and unadulterated. He has a history of breaching contracts and using undocumented and/or foreign workers in lieu of American workers.

Show these facts side by side with his bullshit claims and there will be another kind of 'woke' American... woke to Trump's bullshit.

Both parties have enacted legislation that caused and is still causing demonstrable financial harm to American citizens. — creativesoul

So why vote for either party? A What legislation you specifically have in mind?

Trump's claims about supporting American workers are bullshit, pure and unadulterated. He has a history of breaching contracts and using undocumented workers in lieu of American workers. — creativesoul

He has a history of other quite dubious things, but who cares about the "character issue" anymore? We have had plenty of his 'character' as President. I'd concentrate on his presidency.

...who cares about the "character issue" anymore? — ssu

:brow:

Who cares if he is trustworthy?

Hopefully everybody.

We can judge sitting president from his actions on the job. All I'm saying.

Both parties have enacted legislation that caused and is still causing demonstrable financial harm to American citizens.
— creativesoul
So why vote for either party? — ssu

That sentiment is one consequence of the problems I'm speaking about. When neither candidate from either party is willing to tackle the underlying corruption, and all that that entails - head on - and all effected/affected Americans see the quality of life erode right before their eyes as a result... You get apathetic voters.

Internet has forsaken us! We gave it for all people through the social media. And I thought: everyone will make smarter decisions since information is easier to get. But no - marketing won. Clickbait is the news and the people who have the charisma and the money to market their credibility for their audiences like Elon Musk and Trump are the most powerful. Unintuitive and unemotional things like science become less and less relevant.

Good job, mankind :up:

Neither party stands with American manufacturing... both parties have spoken as if they do. — creativesoul

What would you do if YOU were President?

Personally, I don"t think it's possible to rescue manufacturing jobs (if that's what you're after). You can slow down the losses a bit, but the market currents are too strong to reverse the trend. I'm referring to automation and utilizing lower cost foreign labor. I favor providing opportunities to train for better alternative jobs - i.e. help people, not market segments.

Neither party stands with American manufacturing... both parties have spoken as if they do.
— creativesoul
What would you do if YOU were President? — Relativist

Exactly what I think any and all presidents ought be doing. Exactly what I've been saying needs to be done, and quite a bit more. Keeping the promise made to the American people to act on behalf of their best interest.

Personally, I don"t think it's possible to rescue manufacturing jobs (if that's what you're after). — Relativist

Rescue manufacturing jobs...?

:meh:

Do you mean that there is no possible course of action to be taken that would result in an American manufacturing and infrastructure boom?

Surely not.

It would require a carefully staked out and principled course of action. It requires a "take it or leave it" ultimatum placed upon anyone and everyone who wants to benefit from following American law and being an active part of American marketplace. If you sell goods in America or to Americans, then the rules governing American business practices, including workers' rights and environmental practices, must be adhered to and/or exceeded in every aspect of your business practice.

That's one much needed measure.

It's commonly believed that the United States government cannot deliberately invest into and cultivate another thriving, bustling, and economy boosting American manufacturing sector.

I say that's bullshit. It not only can... it should, and will if the people demand it. The manufacturing sector provided less fortunate, amongst other Americans, a nice worthy valuable piece of the American pie.

I favor providing opportunities to train for better alternative jobs - i.e. help people, not market segments.

Strawman. Red herring. Non-sequitur.

Either market segments are people, or manufacturing is not a market segment, or I'm not talking about helping market segments. Take your pick.

The manufacturing sector is comprised of the people who've suffered demonstrable harm as a result of American legislation. There are other segments of people who've been harmed by different sorts of legislation.

Job training is good.

Fucking an entire population of people out of good paying jobs that provide generation after generation a comfortable life and peaceful retirement is not fixed by providing training for a much less valuable job with far less benefits, far less pay, no retirement, and far less comfortable a lifestyle.

Yet, that's what has happened.

It would require a carefully staked out and principled course of action. It requires a "take it or leave it" ultimatum placed upon anyone and everyone who wants to benefit from following American law and being an active part of American marketplace. If you sell goods in America or to Americans, then the rules governing American business practices, including workers' rights, must be adhered to in every aspect of your business practice. — creativesoul

Suppose a US manufacturer wants to source parts from a Vietnamese company. Will this only be allowed if that Vietnamese company pays their worker at a scale similar to the US, they work a 40 hour work week, with annual paid vacation a year, a medical plan etc?

I favor providing opportunities to train for better alternative jobs - i.e. help people, not market segments.


Strawman. Red herring. Non-sequitur. — creativesoul

What makes you think that? Here's why I say this: Manufacturing jobs in the US have been on the decline for decades, and not solely because of competition for cheap foreign labor - automation was a big driver. But those lost jobs have not resulted in unemployment - they've resulted in people having different jobs. What's wrong with that? What's so special about manufacturing jobs that we must save them? As I said, I think it makes more sense to focus on jobs in general, not some particular types of jobs, like manufacturing. That sounds a bit like Trump promising to save jobs in the coal business, despite the fact that demand for coal is declining or flat, and automation is eliminating jobs. How is this different from saving the jobs of Blockbuster video clerks who rented VCR tapes?

The manufacturing sector is comprised of the people who've suffered demonstrable harm as a result of American legislation. There are other segments of people who've been harmed by different sorts of legislation. — creativesoul

What legislation is that? Do you mean the legislation regarding job safety, minimum wage, and other things that benefit them - but drive up the cost of labor in the US? Or do you mean the absence of the sort of legislation that you discussed that requires foreign companies to follow our standards?

Sure - these people jobs, but that doesn't imply they must have MANUFACTURING jobs.

It would require a carefully staked out and principled course of action. It requires a "take it or leave it" ultimatum placed upon anyone and everyone who wants to benefit from following American law and being an active part of American marketplace. If you sell goods in America or to Americans, then the rules governing American business practices, including workers' rights, must be adhered to in every aspect of your business practice.
— creativesoul
Suppose a US manufacturer wants to source parts from a Vietnamese company. Will this only be allowed if that Vietnamese company pays their worker at a scale similar to the US, they work a 40 hour work week, bet at least 2 weeks vacation a year, a medical plan etc? — Relativist

They must follow and/or exceed American regulations(laws) concerning the lawful production of goods and services.

So are you saying that it's still OK to take advantage of cheap labor in foreign countries? I hope you realize what a big factor that is. If that's not what you mean, then give me some examples of what you DO mean.

What makes you think that? Here's why I say this: Manufacturing jobs in the US have been on the decline for decades, but those lost jobs have not resulted in unemployment - they've resulted in people having different jobs. What's wrong with that? — Relativist

American law resulted in losing American manufacturing, over the decades. Those job losses resulted in unemployment, suicide, depression, and overall greatly diminished quality of life and liberty to Americans. The overwhelming majority of those people who lost those good jobs have taken new jobs that allow a far less comfortable life.

All at the hands of elected officials, and none of which was necessary.

That's what's wrong with that.

So are you saying that it's still OK to take advantage of cheap labor in foreign countries? — Relativist

How about substituting what I am saying in your question... then you wouldn't have one.

:brow:

This sounds a bit like Trump promising to save jobs in the coal business, which was compared to saving jobs at Blockbuster Video renting VCR tapes. — Relativist

More red herrings and non-sequiturs...

Strawman. Red herring. Non-sequitur.
— creativesoul
What makes you think that? — Relativist

If you would have read past that... you would not have had to ask.

Sigh...

:roll:

Listen, I suspected earlier on in this conversation that you were going to attempt to talk in meaningless rhetorical political gibber-jargon...

What I'm saying cannot be properly expressed in such shallow terms as "nationalism" or "populism"...

So do us both a favor and quit trying to stuff ten gallons into your five gallon bucket.

And... to be perfectly clear...

I'm not just advocating for deliberate investment and cultivation of manufacturing jobs. It just so happens that those are the ones being spoken of at this time, because those are the ones lost by virtue of American elected officials not keeping their word to act on behalf of what's in the best interest of the overwhelming majority of Americans while simultaneously making America look like it's not willing to follow it's own rules.

The broad based economic benefits of having a strong manufacturing sector have not even begun to be mentioned. They are many.


Look at the correlations between manufacturing losses and disparity of wealth. They are not accidental... it is no coincidence. It's not the only reason, but it is certainly one.

That sentiment is one consequence of the problems I'm speaking about. When neither candidate from either party is willing to tackle the underlying corruption, and all that that entails - head on - and all effected/affected Americans see the quality of life erode right before their eyes as a result... You get apathetic voters. — creativesoul

There are two very basic falsehoods and obvious myths that persist in US politics and with a large section of American voters.

1) The idea of the Omnipotent President. As if things would be different only if we got the right President to change things around. This myth of the omnipotent presidency is promoted by Hollywood and by media and naturally by any presidential candidate ever, yet it should be obvious to anybody the limitations of the presidency. Trump might tweet this or that nonsense, he might want to be best pals with Putin, but his influence on the US is still quite limited.

2) The idea that Third Parties don't matter. For some reason Americans treat their bi-party system as some God given fact, which they cannot alter in any way. No, the ONLY hope is to hop in with the two dominant parties and hope if they could be changed from the inside...typically with the Presidential candidate, which in it's absurdity again shows the power of the first myth. In fact, many Americans think that the so-called "primaries" are part of the democratic system. In reality the "primaries" are the way how the two corrupt parties dominate the whole political system. This second myth shows how estranged from democracy the American voter has become. He or she doesn't understand that the power of political parties start from the communal and state level. Without that there's no true power at the national level. A viable third party must have presence at the state and communal level.

I'm not just advocating for deliberate investment and cultivation of manufacturing jobs. It just so happens that those are the ones being spoken of at this time, because those are the ones lost by virtue of American elected officials not keeping their word to act on behalf of what's in the best interest of the overwhelming majority of Americans while simultaneously making America look like it's not willing to follow it's own rules. — creativesoul

What specifically did elected officials do, or not do, to cause or contribute to this problem?

Listen, I suspected earlier on in this conversation that you were going to attempt to talk in meaningless rhetorical political gibber-jargon... — creativesoul

I don't understand why you're attacking me. You made a vague, general claim, and I've asked you for specifics while giving you my general thoughts. If you have some facts, present them and skip the insults.

American law resulted in losing American manufacturing, over the decades. — creativesoul

This is what's vague. What laws are you referring to?

Those are myths alright. Not sure if they're held by American voters or held by you about voters. I'm leaning towards the latter.

What do you want?

Are you wanting me to specify exactly which pieces of legislation throughout the last forty to fifty years led up to and/or paved the way for the wealth disparity we currently see, including those laws and/or policies that directly undercut American workers and manufacturing?

Do you understand how the bi-partisan system works, including how it's funded?

What do you want?

Are you wanting me to specify exactly which pieces of legislation throughout the last forty to fifty years led up to and/or paved the way for the wealth disparity we currently see, including those laws and/or policies that directly undercut American workers and manufacturing? — creativesoul

Just describe the sort of laws that you believe caused this. I touched on a few things to see if that's what you meant, and you attacked me.

I've not meant to attack you. Don't be so thin skinned...

I also see that you've edited some of your replies since I replied. There are new things written that were not there before, therefore they were not considered.

There are several different aspects of the current political landscape that need attention; some involving laws effecting/affecting different sectors; some involving the lack thereof; some involving basic housing and education and how those are affected/effected by political parties; some involving how political parties raise money; some involving how candidates are advocated for; some involving how candidates campaigns are funded; some involving income tax regulation; some involving who actually writes the legislation; etc.

There are a number of seemingly smaller issues that all add up to a couple of much larger ones.

What are you asking me about?

Trade deals? The laws that incentivized and rewarded American companies to move production operations elsewhere?

I suppose I need to set out all of the reasons that a robust manufacturing sector is imperative to Americans and the American economy...

Right off the top of my head... self-sufficiency, more money in more American hands, collateral increase in businesses and jobs, a more robust economy... etc.

I'll revisit later...

:smile: :up:

There are several different aspects of the current political landscape that need attention; some involving laws effecting/affecting different sectors; some involving the lack thereof; some involving basic housing and education and how those are affected/effected by political parties; some involving how political parties raise money; some involving how candidates are advocated for; some involving how candidates campaigns are funded; some involving income tax regulation; some involving who actually writes the legislation; etc. — creativesoul

I agree there are a variety of problems with the political landscape, and it would be great to address these. My questions pertained to your comment about maufacturing jobs, which you addressed here;

What are you asking me about?

Trade deals? The laws that incentivized and rewarded American companies to move production operations elsewhere? — creativesoul

I agree that trade deals have hurt US manufacturing, but they have helped other job sectors - and my impression (based on economic analyses I've read) is that they've been a net positive. But even without these deals, manufacturing jobs would have declined due to automation and imports, it just would have been quite as steep a decline.

AFAIK, the "incentives" you referred to are really just a reduction of disincentives, like tarriffs. This gets to my point about cheap labor in other countries. So what happens if we reverse this and adopt more protectionist measures? We save some jobs, and we keep assiciated product prices higher. It's that preferable? Maybe so, but is there no alternative that has less of a negative? That's where training displaced workers comes in: prepare them for alternative, good paying jobs. Let the manual labor get done elsewhere giving us cheaper products, while our people do more technical work.

...trade deals have hurt US manufacturing, but they have helped other job sectors - and my impression (based on economic analyses I've read) is that they've been a net positive. — Relativist

By what measure?

According to this analysis of NAFTA, there is higher GDP, lower consumer prices, and probably total jobs. Some sectors lost jobs, and some gained.