Abe, The 51% doctrine applies to all countries, not just China. I am using China as the embodiment of what is wrong with globalization.
On your question how to implement, of course the implementation will be difficult. But if we can put a man on the moon I'm sure we as a country can do this. To Isdang Tumbaga: The U.S. has indeed a history of protectionism. But I'm sure you know that since the end of the 2nd World War the U.S. has had an open market policy for the most part. Our market has been open to Japan, to South Korea, the European countries that were helped by the Marshall Plan. We went in the opposite extreme when we opened up our market. But, past is past. What is important is the here and now. Do we continue our policy of letting our manufacturing industries die off? I know you guys don't want to lose arguments, especially in front of our friends on the Internet. So let's just meet halfway. I will grant that my proposal is over the top, idealistic even, if you agree that the times call for drastic solutions. Bottom line: I need your support to get this petition off the ground. Will you give it? C On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 9:40 PM, Abe Inocentes <[email protected]> wrote: > Cesar, > > I agree with your goal but disagree with your solution. The problem > is clear but the solution is not. > > You contradict yourself - "You say that China is a communist country and > therefore it's form of capitalism is predatory." Sorry but communist > countries are not capitalists - there is no capitalism in China! But I > agree, China's business practice is predatory. But then, who is not. > Walmart is doing that right here in the US. If one day, China demands > Boeing to setup a plant there, China will not be the first. Brazil, > considered a third world country, has been doing that for many years. No > imports - everything is assembled in Brazil. If you go to Brazil, you will > see VWs and GMs and other world products marked "Industria Brasileira" or > "Made in Brazil". China has been artifcially holding the value of the > Yuan at a very low rate of exchange. That is actualy the main reason why > it cost so little for US companies to use Chinese labor. But, no matter > what the reason or reasons are, and which countries practice real trade or > not, the US must compete in order to succeed. > > Anyway, can you tell us how you intend to implement and regulate your idea > that 51% of all products sold in th US are made in the US? And if I was in > business, why would I want to become better and richer when I know I will > be punished through taxation? > > .....Bombots > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2013 06:09:31 -0800 > Subject: Re: [MoonglowPlanet] Re: The President of the United States, The > U.S. Congress: Mandate that 51% of all products sold in the U.S. are made > in the U.S. > From: [email protected] > To: [email protected] > CC: [email protected]; [email protected]; > [email protected]; [email protected]; > [email protected]; [email protected]; > [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; > [email protected]; [email protected]; > [email protected]; [email protected]; > [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; > [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; > [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; > [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; > [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; > [email protected]; [email protected] > > > To Lynn, Oyo, Copper, Abe, Rico and all my friends on the Internet, > > I am thoroughly familiar with the issues you raised, i.e., that > international trade is the monster that it is, that multinationals exist to > make as much money as they can for their shareholders, that China is a > communist country and therefore its form of capitalism is predatory. > > This is the reality of our world today. > > What I am hoping to accomplish through my movement is to tweak that world. > Not to completely change it, but to tweak it. I want international trade > to be benign. (*Doesn't everybody?*) I want it to be an instrument for > spreading wealth around, instead of being a Darwinian struggle of survival > of the fittest. (*Doesn't everybody want this?*) I want international > trade to create jobs everywhere instead of killing jobs in the > industrialized world. (*You can't possibly be against this if you live > in the industrialized world.)* > > International trade, which is synonymous with globalization, has been bad > for countries like the U.S. and the European countries and have only > marginally benefited some Asian countries like the Philippines. > > If you follow the logic of the 51% movement, you will note that it is only > a distillation of what the Chinese are already doing. The Chinese are > insisting that the GM cars marketed in China are built in China. The > Chinese want to build almost everything they need in their own country. It > won't be long before they insist that Boeing set up factories in China. It > is official Chinese policy and not just an organic development in the free > trade system, China-style. > > There is official sentiment in China that if their own people need > something, they should build it themselves and not import the products from > other countries. The Japanese, the Koreans, the Taiwanese, the Germans, > etc. have similar though not formalized policies. > > It is actually only the U.S. and some foolish European countries - and > Australia - who practice true international trade. Australia is content > in being China's supplier of raw materials, its manufacturing being shipped > to China piece by piece was we speak. > > We are the naive ones. We believe in a completely free laissez-fairish > trade because of our foolish pride. We think we invented free trade, > therefore we don't want to abandon it. The truth? England invented free > trade and look what happened to it. It has become a nation of shopkeepers. > > International trade, like globalization, is the instrument used by > countries like China and by corporations like GE, Apple, Nike, etc. to > dismantle the industrial revolution in the U.S. and other advanced > countries, piece by frigging piece. The pace is accelerating. > > What should the U.S. do? Shall it just stand by and watch nearly all its > manufacturing industries disappear and then reappear in China, Singapore, > Malaysia, etc.? Some have foolishly suggested, including President Obama, > that we should concentrate on the high-tech manufacturing of the future. > The result of this initiative is Solyndra. We cannot compete in super > high-tech manufacturing because the Chinese, the Germans, the South > Koreans, the Japanese are already in those industries and dominating in > them. > > We must bring low-tech, traditional manufacturing back to the U.S. Once > we've rebuilt our manufacturing base here we will be strong enough to > compete in the high-tech futuristic industries again. Only then can we > hope to compete with the Chinese in building our brave new world. > > Have you heard of singularity? Supposedly, because of the heightened pace > of progress in artificial intelligence research and development, by 2050 > machines will be able to mimic humans. Machines will be able to think, > feel, plan, play sports, fall in love, etc. the way we humans can. > Scientists call this singularity, the concept that machines become > interchangeable with humans. > > Scary, isn't it? Without the U.S. having a strong manufacturing base, we > cannot hope to become manufacturers of those machines. We don't even make > computers here anymore. If we do, not in any meaningful quantities. > > Did you know that tires are no longer made in the U.S.? They're all made > in Malaysia now. There's a whole city in Ohio, Dayton, which went from > being "the tire company of the world" to become a virtual ghost town. > Dayton is recovering, thank God, but it will never be the same or anywhere > close to what it was. > > If you have children who are not doctors, nurses, physical therapists, > etc., your children are victims of globalization. Their options are far > more limited than our options when we were working. Chances are, they are > living with you or are considering living with you because they don't have > the opportunities we had when we were first starting out. > > We Americans have to fight back, not for ourselves but for our children. > Our only weapon, and it's a weapon that no other country can match, is the > American market. The American market is the biggest and richest market in > the universe, richer than any market ever seen on this planet. > > We own this market and we can do with it what we please. > > We consumers can and must insist through our President and our Congress > that any company or country that sells in this market sells at our own > terms, not theirs. > > We will not prevent companies from selling in our market, all we ask of > the major companies that sell here is that they make 51% of the products > they sell here in factories located within our borders. It's like what we > forced the foreign auto makers to do. Reagan threatened sanctions on the > Toyotas and the Nissans, etc. so those car companies would set up plants in > the U.S. Today, the cars that are actually most "American," since they are > made in the U.S. and have the highest U.S.-made parts contents in > percentage terms, are the Camry and the Accord. Both cars are more > "American" than the Fords, GMs and Chrysler cars that are assembled in the > U.S. > > The Apples, the Vizios, the Sonys, the Sharps, the GE's, the HP's, etc., > will never make their products in the U.S. on their own volition because it > is so profitable to make things in China at Chinese prices and sell those > things in the U.S. at U.S. prices. > > They therefore must be forced to make products here in the U.S. again. > > And we're not saying they must do this today, or tomorrow. We will give > them 5, 7 or ten years, depending on the industry, to comply. > > The penalty will be huge tariffs, monies that will be used to subsidize > companies that will make clothing, TVs, radios, tires, plasterboard, etc. > once again on U.S. shores. > > I know that this will be disruptive of free trade. But that's the whole > idea. Our movement wants this one-sided, predatory trade to stop. We want > to replace it with a reformed version of free trade, one that protects jobs > in host countries. > > And if other countries, such as the Philippines, France, Greece, Spain and > Ireland follow the U.S. lead, the ultimate result will be a redistribution > of the huge rewards of international trade. Countries that have lost jobs > to globalization will be able to rebuild their manufacturing base and > hundreds of millions of the world's citizens will be able to ascend the > middle class from the ranks of the poor, unemployed and underemployed. > > We have assumed all along that utopia is an impossible goal. Maybe so, > but we can aspire for it, and if we fall short, we still will end up with a > far better world than what we've got. > > C > > PS For more discussion on this topic, please log on to us-consumer.com. > > > On Sun, Mar 3, 2013 at 9:49 PM, Honorio Cruz <[email protected]> wrote: > > *Cesar L,* > > *What we wish and what we could accomplish sometimes are contrary to > common sense and the free market. Unfortunately the free market is the > prevailing economies in the whole world, save for a few big money movers, > who don't care to follow its tenets, most notably, the HIGH BREED PEKING > DUCK. As countries flocked to China, or rather as corporations elbowed > each other to gain a foothold in China, gaining access to cheap labor, > hence potential for a big pay-off, the outsourced countries suffer, until > the lost jobs are replaced by better, sophisticated manufacturing jobs or > services, unique and not easily duplicated in other countries. > > China, which doesn't play by the rules because of being a communist > country with a highly centralized economy, yet able to pivot at a moment's > notice to adapt to market forces, not responsive to the masses, able to > move whole towns or cities if need be to benefit the government treasury. > Where else could you see whole ghost towns, victims of economic > miscalculation, yet no repercussions from the well controlled masses. And > here you are advocating at least 51% of a product sold in the US must be > made in the US is as realistic as the yellow brick road to the land of Oz, > practically mandating a bankrupt corporation, in today's economic reality. > To an American consumer, attuned to the tenet of the best for the least, > how many US goods with the 51% mandate meet the requirement and be > competitive in prices, globally without being heavily government > subsidized. We have the reality of a Solyndra, a $500 million boondoggle. > The only industry that will meet your requirement are products from the MIC > a heavily subsidized industry and the left's favorite whipping boy. Yes > they are money makers for the country because of their unique talent, > unparalleled success in the killing fields and their government clients > don't question $1,000 dollar screws, they just want the best.* > * > * > *..HMC* > > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Center for Good Governance" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/center-for-good-governance?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
