Do you think a rise of protectionism would be good for GM and the US economy.
Registered User
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 4,600
From: Pewee Valley, KY
Re: Do you think a rise of protectionism would be good for GM and the US economy.
Originally Posted by johnsocal
You lost me @ dumbass Americans…..
BTW I may offend some who view this so take all which is to follow as my personal opinion based on my life in a midsize city, impacted by the local population around me.
I have worked in food service, retail sales, and in a healthcare office and one thing seems to follow me where ever I go and that is how freaking cheap people can be! If you don't understand what I am talking about then go down to the local Walmart's electronics section (electronics are used because I can personally attest to how this works) and just watch people and their purchase habits and how they interact with employees and then go toy our local electronics store and watch how people interact with employees there.
This is what you will see in Walmart: Someone comes in looking for a DVD player. They find their way to the electronics on their own. They walk down the aisles till they find the DVD players. They will look for a mid level model, not the cheapest $20 one but one 1 or 2 steps up from there. They will likely not ask a question about DVD players to an employee, and if they do they are likely to get an "I don't know", or a "This isn't my department." They will walk to the front of the store and check out with the cashier saying less than 10 words to them, this assumes they have no other purchases to make that day.
Now watch what happens at a specialized electronics store: Someone walks in the door and asks where the DVD players are, unless they see a sign. An employee either directs them to the DVD players or takes them there, depending on store. Now the person will likely ask at least 1 question, the most common are will this work with my ____, what is the warrenty, and what else will I need. The employee will likely ask them questions to 'qualify' the needs. Then the employee may suggest something that is needed. The employee may check them out on the spot, again depending on the store OR the customer will check out, generally some sort of interaction is made with whomever checks out the customer.
The differences between the stores are 1) customer service and 2) price. The one with the slightly higher price will provide better customer service than Walmart because of their higher price. The fact remains that because Walmart is marginally cheaper more people will buy stuff from them because it saves a few cents on the dollar.
Also to rebut something Proud said. People in this country aren't buying cheap because they are saving. Many are doing it because they buy things beyond their means and have to cheap out on other things because they are swimming in debt.
[/rant]
Registered User
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 3,180
From: Yadkinville, NC USA
Re: Do you think a rise of protectionism would be good for GM and the US economy.
Originally Posted by 91_z28_4me
Let me add on what Proud said, if I can without offending him.
BTW I may offend some who view this so take all which is to follow as my personal opinion based on my life in a midsize city, impacted by the local population around me.
I have worked in food service, retail sales, and in a healthcare office and one thing seems to follow me where ever I go and that is how freaking cheap people can be! If you don't understand what I am talking about then go down to the local Walmart's electronics section (electronics are used because I can personally attest to how this works) and just watch people and their purchase habits and how they interact with employees and then go toy our local electronics store and watch how people interact with employees there.
This is what you will see in Walmart: Someone comes in looking for a DVD player. They find their way to the electronics on their own. They walk down the aisles till they find the DVD players. They will look for a mid level model, not the cheapest $20 one but one 1 or 2 steps up from there. They will likely not ask a question about DVD players to an employee, and if they do they are likely to get an "I don't know", or a "This isn't my department." They will walk to the front of the store and check out with the cashier saying less than 10 words to them, this assumes they have no other purchases to make that day.
Now watch what happens at a specialized electronics store: Someone walks in the door and asks where the DVD players are, unless they see a sign. An employee either directs them to the DVD players or takes them there, depending on store. Now the person will likely ask at least 1 question, the most common are will this work with my ____, what is the warrenty, and what else will I need. The employee will likely ask them questions to 'qualify' the needs. Then the employee may suggest something that is needed. The employee may check them out on the spot, again depending on the store OR the customer will check out, generally some sort of interaction is made with whomever checks out the customer.
The differences between the stores are 1) customer service and 2) price. The one with the slightly higher price will provide better customer service than Walmart because of their higher price. The fact remains that because Walmart is marginally cheaper more people will buy stuff from them because it saves a few cents on the dollar.
BTW I may offend some who view this so take all which is to follow as my personal opinion based on my life in a midsize city, impacted by the local population around me.
I have worked in food service, retail sales, and in a healthcare office and one thing seems to follow me where ever I go and that is how freaking cheap people can be! If you don't understand what I am talking about then go down to the local Walmart's electronics section (electronics are used because I can personally attest to how this works) and just watch people and their purchase habits and how they interact with employees and then go toy our local electronics store and watch how people interact with employees there.
This is what you will see in Walmart: Someone comes in looking for a DVD player. They find their way to the electronics on their own. They walk down the aisles till they find the DVD players. They will look for a mid level model, not the cheapest $20 one but one 1 or 2 steps up from there. They will likely not ask a question about DVD players to an employee, and if they do they are likely to get an "I don't know", or a "This isn't my department." They will walk to the front of the store and check out with the cashier saying less than 10 words to them, this assumes they have no other purchases to make that day.
Now watch what happens at a specialized electronics store: Someone walks in the door and asks where the DVD players are, unless they see a sign. An employee either directs them to the DVD players or takes them there, depending on store. Now the person will likely ask at least 1 question, the most common are will this work with my ____, what is the warrenty, and what else will I need. The employee will likely ask them questions to 'qualify' the needs. Then the employee may suggest something that is needed. The employee may check them out on the spot, again depending on the store OR the customer will check out, generally some sort of interaction is made with whomever checks out the customer.
The differences between the stores are 1) customer service and 2) price. The one with the slightly higher price will provide better customer service than Walmart because of their higher price. The fact remains that because Walmart is marginally cheaper more people will buy stuff from them because it saves a few cents on the dollar.
Also to rebut something Proud said. People in this country aren't buying cheap because they are saving. Many are doing it because they buy things beyond their means and have to cheap out on other things because they are swimming in debt.[/rant]
Now to ADD to YOUR statement, people in China make MUCH less than we do per-capita, but they still manage to save over 50% of what they make (52% according to Shanghai Daily newspaper last week), whereas we Americans are growing more and more in debt... with credit cards, 2nd mortgages, loans against 401k's, student loans, etc. This does NOT bode well for us either as an economy, because - as you said - it indicates that we are spending money we don't truely have to spend. Compound that when we go into hock to buy a foreign product...
Registered User
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 3,180
From: Yadkinville, NC USA
Re: Do you think a rise of protectionism would be good for GM and the US economy.
Originally Posted by johnsocal
I haven’t been there personally but I have friends who have but more importantly I know a handful of people who I do business with on a daily basis not who are constantly traveling back and force to China and some who have manufacturing operations there. So in many way I know a lot of the business tactics, logistics, and cultural roadblocks that exist within China from 1st hand sources who know best. I even know little-known facts regarding rolling blackouts within China's Manfacturing sectors because economic growth is now outstripping China energy infrastructure and that its causing major delays in manufactruing times from a 2 day cycle to over a week in some cases.
Also, I found out last week that we will begin engineering on our next production line in 3Q2006, and it is budgeted at about $125-million. I will be in China doing projects through 2008 unless I die, hit the Lotto, or have a long lost relative bequeath me their fortune.
(Throw in 12 years of long stays in Taiwan and Mexico here just for reference too.)
THIS is what qualifies me to speak my mind on these issues.
It’s still protectionism regardless if you want to admit it or not 
Just said I choose not to use that term because it is ambiguous.
You lost me @ dumbass Americans…..
I am probably more patriotic than most, so please don't think I am anti-American. I love my neighbor and will fight to the death defending him, but one of my rights as an American is to call 'em as I see 'em, and I see LOTS of Americans that are incredibly self-centered, and incredibly irresponsible with their money.
China not only artificially keeps their currency lower then it should to keep it products cheaper on the global market, but China needs its economy to grow at a rapid amount just to keep it unemployment rate stable to handle its huge population.
You do realize that most of China’s population lives outside the areas you visited in far different living conditions? China is improving greatly in many regions but they have a long road of ahead them nationally.
I damn-near speak the language (I get by pretty well), and I work shoulder-to-shoulder with Chinese labor units daily (janitors, sweepers, and such too, not just executives or engineers). I ask them where they come from, where their family is, how many children they have, how long they have worked for PFG (a construction contractor we use in China), and other basic conversation that any two guys like you and I would have. I think I have about as good a feel for what these people and their society is about as any American can.
I ride the train from Kunshan to Shanghai. I ride the subway. Likewise, I drive out into the country, go sight-seeing, and explore their "remote" areas as well. Now I don't claim to be a native of Tibet, but I have experienced their "common" lifestyles.
For some reason you use a lot of words in your posts, but provide very little usable information.
government policy that encourages it's citizens to buy domestic is good in my opinion, but it should not even be necessary - people should WANT to buy domestic product because it is of good quality and to support their own economy. China actually has BOTH - they have policy that encourages their people to buy domestic, but their people WANT to buy goods made in China even if it is of inferior quality. The Chinese government AND their people both have a common goal, which is to make their nation the world's economic superpower. Americans just want their personal bank accounts to get fat, regardless of what it does to the US economy or the nation as a whole.
That's as concise as I can make it. Hope that cleared things up for you a bit.
Not arguing with you or anyone else about anything in this thread, just trying to paint the picture as it REALLY exists in China - I just got off the plane this week from my latest trip there, and frankly I'm tired of the misconception that newspapers and heresay is spreading over here. It's like the "GM is going bankrupt" articles we've been seeing in the media for 6-months now - it's a lot of hype that's a mix of partial truths and speculation.
Thread Starter
Registered User
Joined: Dec 1969
Posts: 1,911
From: Southern California (SoCal)
Re: Do you think a rise of protectionism would be good for GM and the US economy.
government policy that encourages it's citizens to buy domestic is good in my opinion, but it should not even be necessary - people should WANT to buy domestic product because it is of good quality and to support their own economy. China actually has BOTH - they have policy that encourages their people to buy domestic, but their people WANT to buy goods made in China even if it is of inferior quality. The Chinese government AND their people both have a common goal, which is to make their nation the world's economic superpower. Americans just want their personal bank accounts to get fat, regardless of what it does to the US economy or the nation as a whole.
I think alot of people would be surprised how modern some parts of China have become.
Not arguing with you or anyone else about anything in this thread, just trying to paint the picture as it REALLY exists in China - I just got off the plane this week from my latest trip there, and frankly I'm tired of the misconception that newspapers and heresay is spreading over here. It's like the "GM is going bankrupt" articles we've been seeing in the media for 6-months now - it's a lot of hype that's a mix of partial truths and speculation.
I try to my best not to mischaracterize China but base my opinions on the best information I can over the last ten years from friends in business who have had manufacturing facilities there for years and can personally testify to the rapid economic improvement and/or changes in some regions there.
Last edited by johnsocal; Mar 31, 2006 at 10:29 PM.
Registered User
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 439
From: Northern VA
Re: Do you think a rise of protectionism would be good for GM and the US economy.
Proud- I've got to ask-
How do you reconcile the "Buy American" rhetoric against the fact that you, an American, are building factories in China? Point of fact- China's economy would be for-$hite if not for all the foreign money pouring in, and your work is further enabling that.
If the demand-side enabler of foreign goods defines the "dumbass American," where do you, the supply-side enabler, fit in?
This might read like a personal attack, but I seriously don't mean it to be. I'd really like to understand.
For the record- protectionism -> BAD over the long term.
How do you reconcile the "Buy American" rhetoric against the fact that you, an American, are building factories in China? Point of fact- China's economy would be for-$hite if not for all the foreign money pouring in, and your work is further enabling that.
If the demand-side enabler of foreign goods defines the "dumbass American," where do you, the supply-side enabler, fit in?
This might read like a personal attack, but I seriously don't mean it to be. I'd really like to understand.
For the record- protectionism -> BAD over the long term.
Thread Starter
Registered User
Joined: Dec 1969
Posts: 1,911
From: Southern California (SoCal)
Re: Do you think a rise of protectionism would be good for GM and the US economy.
I don’t know if this is a case of “Do as I say, not as I do” or a person just thinking ”I’m just supplying a product that’s in demand and if I wasn’t doing it someone else would be” but regardless I think we 'all' need to evaluate differences of what we would like to believe we do from what we (as individuals) actually do on a daily basis.
Sometimes I view the current economic climate the equivalent to an “economic” Civil-War which not-unlike our own Civil War in the past in which our country was financing and arming both sides of the conflict. While I think this "economic" Civil War has been occurring for decades, I do believe that “IF” (big “IF” here) GM filed for Bankruptcy it will unveil to the masses the reality of globalization of not only the manufacturing sector, but to a much larger degree a true globalization of the financial markets. The current path of globalization can’t be reversed without substantial social and economically devasting consiquences.
I'm afraid if we attempt to revert back into projectionist policies this will not only 'temporarily' bring down our own economy, but subsequently the global economy as well. What’s far worse (in IMO) then this short term downfall is that the global economy and global financial markets will divest themselves out of the local US economy and US dollar and make the US ‘less’ relevant in the global marketplace. Not coincidentally there are many within the US as well many more outside of our borders who would love nothing more then for the US to be less involved in the world’s affairs. While currently our national debt is ‘NOT’ the highest it has been in the past on a percentage basis compared to our GDP, but if the economy went down quickly we could all of sudden find ourselves in a deep load of $@%t!
Sometimes I view the current economic climate the equivalent to an “economic” Civil-War which not-unlike our own Civil War in the past in which our country was financing and arming both sides of the conflict. While I think this "economic" Civil War has been occurring for decades, I do believe that “IF” (big “IF” here) GM filed for Bankruptcy it will unveil to the masses the reality of globalization of not only the manufacturing sector, but to a much larger degree a true globalization of the financial markets. The current path of globalization can’t be reversed without substantial social and economically devasting consiquences.
I'm afraid if we attempt to revert back into projectionist policies this will not only 'temporarily' bring down our own economy, but subsequently the global economy as well. What’s far worse (in IMO) then this short term downfall is that the global economy and global financial markets will divest themselves out of the local US economy and US dollar and make the US ‘less’ relevant in the global marketplace. Not coincidentally there are many within the US as well many more outside of our borders who would love nothing more then for the US to be less involved in the world’s affairs. While currently our national debt is ‘NOT’ the highest it has been in the past on a percentage basis compared to our GDP, but if the economy went down quickly we could all of sudden find ourselves in a deep load of $@%t!
Last edited by johnsocal; Apr 2, 2006 at 05:58 PM.
Registered User
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 3,180
From: Yadkinville, NC USA
Re: Do you think a rise of protectionism would be good for GM and the US economy.
Originally Posted by Todd80Z28
Proud- I've got to ask-
How do you reconcile the "Buy American" rhetoric against the fact that you, an American, are building factories in China? Point of fact- China's economy would be for-$hite if not for all the foreign money pouring in, and your work is further enabling that.
If the demand-side enabler of foreign goods defines the "dumbass American," where do you, the supply-side enabler, fit in?
This might read like a personal attack, but I seriously don't mean it to be. I'd really like to understand.
For the record- protectionism -> BAD over the long term.
How do you reconcile the "Buy American" rhetoric against the fact that you, an American, are building factories in China? Point of fact- China's economy would be for-$hite if not for all the foreign money pouring in, and your work is further enabling that.
If the demand-side enabler of foreign goods defines the "dumbass American," where do you, the supply-side enabler, fit in?
This might read like a personal attack, but I seriously don't mean it to be. I'd really like to understand.
For the record- protectionism -> BAD over the long term.
Not taken as an attack whatsoever. In fact, it tears me up - honestly.
I struggle with it constantly, and have many long discussions about it with co-workers and family.
Know what the bottom line is? If I didn't do it, somebody else would. That doesn't make it right, but it makes it tolerable for me. My company would simply move me aside and get the next guy to do it if I didn't, so why not make the best of it, fight it as much as I can from the inside, learn what I can, and share my experience with as many people as I can.
My company has partnered with another firm that was already operating in China - we are 50% stakeholers in the chinese operations, and we get a percentage of the profits made from the product produced there indefinitely. This enabled us to get into China quickly without all the red tape, and it also gave us access to customers that we didn't even know existed over there. Sharing our technology with our partners was actually a decent move (as much as it pains me to say it), because it was essentially a "lump-sum payment" made up front in the form of equipment, that will yeild significant annual dividends to our company well into the future. The other good thing about it is that we only share "proven technology" with our partners - read that as "old" technology! They are not allowed access to our latest automation and programming - THAT is how we are staying cost-competitive in our markets here in the US. They get the labor-intensive stuff...
Another side of the coin is this... we HAD customers here in the states that told us they were moving to China for various reasons, and they wanted to continue to buy our products, but they wanted the products to be locally produced and supplied in JIT fashion. In other words, "we are going over there, and if you want us to keep buying from you then you better go too." We have actually maintained some accounts and even grown some of them by going there to supply locally to our customers. We have operations in Zibo, Kunshan, and Chiayi that are based on our customers' relocations as much as our own choice.
PERSONALLY... it kills me knowing that I am bolstering their economy, just like you said. There are only tiny slivers of silver linings to this huge cloud...
*I have enabled our domestic plants to stay alive by moving only those products that must be produced locally to the end-user for shelf-live or JIT/feedback reasons. All of our US operations are still open and operating - no plant closures yet - but admittedly we have scaled back production significantly here due to lost local sales.
*I have enabled a company that is based in the USA to extract SOME financial gains by SELLING OUR GOODS IN THE CHINESE MARKET to Chinese consumers - something that not too many comapnies have done. Most are producing goods there, then exporting them and selling them to other nations like ours and Europe. So in a tiny way, I kinda got one over on them - even if it is just a drop in the bucket.
.... *Lastly, having the opportunity to go to these places, experience their cultures, lifestyles, demeanors, and economics has done wonders for me as an individual. Anyone who reads my gibber-gabber on this board knows I am not the typical upper-middle class American... THIS EXPERIENCE is why.
I DON'T BUY CHINESE CRAP. I go out of my way to buy American anymore.
I DON'T LIKE WAL-MART. I go out of my way to buy from local merchants.
I DON'T LIKE CHEAP CRAP. $1/wrenches at the local flea market are like skunk-nuts to me... I run from them.
My 401K investments are carefully chosen to bolster US growth.
My private investments are in US firms - solely.
I WILL WALK before I ride in a Toyota, Honda, Kia, Hyundai, Daewoo, Nissan, Mitsubishi, or any other Asian company's vehicle.
Only under desperate conditions will I ride in a Mercedes, BMW, VW, or other European vehicle... at least Europe shares similar values with the US as "industrialized" nations.
I can go on and on about how I do things different than most people I know, but the point is - I have changed my entire life because of my experiences abroad, and even though I am only one person, it releives my conscience to think that I am doing my part to help keep America on-track as much as I can.
You got me... I'm not 100% happy about building plants in China, but I hope the notes above help you understand why I am able to live with myself.
Thread Starter
Registered User
Joined: Dec 1969
Posts: 1,911
From: Southern California (SoCal)
Re: Do you think a rise of protectionism would be good for GM and the US economy.
I DON'T BUY CHINESE CRAP. I go out of my way to buy American anymore.
I DON'T LIKE WAL-MART. I go out of my way to buy from local merchants.
I DON'T LIKE CHEAP CRAP. $1/wrenches at the local flea market are like skunk-nuts to me... I run from them.
My 401K investments are carefully chosen to bolster US growth.
My private investments are in US firms - solely.
My private investments are in US firms - solely.
I WILL WALK before I ride in a Toyota, Honda, Kia, Hyundai, Daewoo, Nissan, Mitsubishi, or any other Asian company's vehicle.
It's good to agree for a change
Last edited by johnsocal; Apr 2, 2006 at 10:25 PM.
Thread Starter
Registered User
Joined: Dec 1969
Posts: 1,911
From: Southern California (SoCal)
Re: Do you think a rise of protectionism would be good for GM and the US economy.
Right now the Senate is considering applying a 27.5% tarrif on Chinese goods. It looks like there’s a 50/50 chance it could go through but Imagine if GM filed for BK and dominated the headlines for months. Just realizing how politically radioactive this topic would become and how easy tariffs like this would go through the Senate with little-to-no-resistance.
The 'tariff war' is never onesided and usually the party who initiated new tariffs will be inflicted by some sort of economic penalty as retribution.
http://www.chinaknowledge.com/news-detail.aspx?id=2533
The 'tariff war' is never onesided and usually the party who initiated new tariffs will be inflicted by some sort of economic penalty as retribution.
http://www.chinaknowledge.com/news-detail.aspx?id=2533
U.S. senators postpone China tariff vote
**
Mar. 28, 2006 (China Knowledge) – Two U.S. senators said on Tuesday they are postponing a vote on a tariff bill against China after a weeklong trip to China and meeting Chinese officials, reported State-run Xinhua news agency.*
According to the report, Senator Lindsey Graham, a Republican from South Carolina, and Senator Charles Schumer, a New York Democrat, said they are delaying a vote on the tariffs bill against China for six months, and that they have received assurances from local officials that Beijing is taking steps towards currency reform.
The bill, due to take place this Friday, would impose 27.5% tariffs on Chinese imports if the currency dispute between the two countries were not settled. It has been postponed by the senators to "to no later than September 29", the report said.
In a meeting with the U.S. Senators last week, Chinese Vice Premier Wu Yi expressed her hope that the U.S. will cooperate closely with China and rely on consultations to resolve the existing problems in the process of development.
**
Mar. 28, 2006 (China Knowledge) – Two U.S. senators said on Tuesday they are postponing a vote on a tariff bill against China after a weeklong trip to China and meeting Chinese officials, reported State-run Xinhua news agency.*
According to the report, Senator Lindsey Graham, a Republican from South Carolina, and Senator Charles Schumer, a New York Democrat, said they are delaying a vote on the tariffs bill against China for six months, and that they have received assurances from local officials that Beijing is taking steps towards currency reform.
The bill, due to take place this Friday, would impose 27.5% tariffs on Chinese imports if the currency dispute between the two countries were not settled. It has been postponed by the senators to "to no later than September 29", the report said.
In a meeting with the U.S. Senators last week, Chinese Vice Premier Wu Yi expressed her hope that the U.S. will cooperate closely with China and rely on consultations to resolve the existing problems in the process of development.
Last edited by johnsocal; Apr 3, 2006 at 12:36 PM.
Registered User
Joined: Feb 1999
Posts: 2,947
From: Springfield,OH. U.S.A.
Re: Do you think a rise of protectionism would be good for GM and the US economy.
An article I found, that has more insight into globalization:
By Noreena Hertz
"We live increasingly in a world of have and have nots, of gated communities next to ghettos, of extreme poverty and unbelievable riches. Some enjoy rights that are completely denied others. Vast numbers of people see almost no benefits from the "advances" of the past century. Relative inequalities are exploding, and the world's poorest, despite all the "advances" of globalization, may even be getting poorer.
"Trickle Down", the main rationale of neoliberal globalization, has turned out to be an illusion. Special Interests have gained in power. Some have a voice, but many remain voiceless.
In a world of extremes, which can be characterized most clearly in terms of exclusion: political, social, and economic.
*What do I mean by political exclusion?
The rights of citizens marginalized by the interests of Big Buisness-whether this is George W.'s environmental policy, clearly formulated with the interests of American Energy in mind, or the infamous WTO-World Trade Organization, which puts trade interests before the environment, labor standards, or human rights.
Governments can no longer be counted on to safeguard the "public" interest or protect the public realm.
*Economic exclusion?
That is self explanitory and can be seen everywhere in growing inequality and polarization of wealth, in countries in the South crippled by debt repayments and "growing income gaps" both within and between countries. In almost every developing country in the world, the number of people living on "less than a dollar a day" has "increased" rather than fallen in the 20 years since the Washington Concensus became mainstream.
*And Social exclusion?
In a world like this, few can gain redress for the injustices inflicted upon them. In the South, we often see a "race to the bottom": companies scouring the globe for the cheapest and easiest places to manufacture. Regulatory standards, health and safety standards fall, whille rights are "junked", communities displaced, "unions outlawed". Tobacco workers in Brazil are poisoned by "banned pesticides", but there is NO HOPE of compensation, let alone improvement in working conditions. These are Southern workers and Southern Communities, "excluded" from the access to justice that we in the First World(so called) take for granted.......
"We live increasingly in a world of have and have nots, of gated communities next to ghettos, of extreme poverty and unbelievable riches. Some enjoy rights that are completely denied others. Vast numbers of people see almost no benefits from the "advances" of the past century. Relative inequalities are exploding, and the world's poorest, despite all the "advances" of globalization, may even be getting poorer.
"Trickle Down", the main rationale of neoliberal globalization, has turned out to be an illusion. Special Interests have gained in power. Some have a voice, but many remain voiceless.
In a world of extremes, which can be characterized most clearly in terms of exclusion: political, social, and economic.
*What do I mean by political exclusion?
The rights of citizens marginalized by the interests of Big Buisness-whether this is George W.'s environmental policy, clearly formulated with the interests of American Energy in mind, or the infamous WTO-World Trade Organization, which puts trade interests before the environment, labor standards, or human rights.
Governments can no longer be counted on to safeguard the "public" interest or protect the public realm.
*Economic exclusion?
That is self explanitory and can be seen everywhere in growing inequality and polarization of wealth, in countries in the South crippled by debt repayments and "growing income gaps" both within and between countries. In almost every developing country in the world, the number of people living on "less than a dollar a day" has "increased" rather than fallen in the 20 years since the Washington Concensus became mainstream.
*And Social exclusion?
In a world like this, few can gain redress for the injustices inflicted upon them. In the South, we often see a "race to the bottom": companies scouring the globe for the cheapest and easiest places to manufacture. Regulatory standards, health and safety standards fall, whille rights are "junked", communities displaced, "unions outlawed". Tobacco workers in Brazil are poisoned by "banned pesticides", but there is NO HOPE of compensation, let alone improvement in working conditions. These are Southern workers and Southern Communities, "excluded" from the access to justice that we in the First World(so called) take for granted.......
Last edited by 90rocz; Apr 3, 2006 at 07:45 PM.
Thread Starter
Registered User
Joined: Dec 1969
Posts: 1,911
From: Southern California (SoCal)
Re: Do you think a rise of protectionism would be good for GM and the US economy.
90rocz,
The theme of the article you posted is what has me so concerned. Honestly its not that I agree with the quote you provided but that similar 'protectionist' and/or isolationist arguments will be made and will be difficult to overcome if GM does indeed go bankrupt. If protectionism vs. Globalization debate ignites into a larger national issue, domestic and foreign investment into our country will divert into other global opportunities that will be less hostile. I'm afraid to say it but globalization needs to function under the rader in a somewhat secretive manner in order to operate effectively.
As difficult things might be for some people economically right now here in the US (people are still doing pretty good right now as well) I think our economy would be in severely worse shape right now (look at France as an example) if it wasn't for globalized manufacturing and competition, foreign investment into our country, and the fact foriegn countries are buying our bonds and inadvertantly keeping long term interest rates lower then they otherwise would in the process.
I would be willing to argue that its 'easier' for a modern/wealthy nation for fall back into a poor 3rd world status then it is for most 3rd world countries to become a vibrant modern nation with a large middle class.
Nobody ever said the road to prosperity only went one way.
The theme of the article you posted is what has me so concerned. Honestly its not that I agree with the quote you provided but that similar 'protectionist' and/or isolationist arguments will be made and will be difficult to overcome if GM does indeed go bankrupt. If protectionism vs. Globalization debate ignites into a larger national issue, domestic and foreign investment into our country will divert into other global opportunities that will be less hostile. I'm afraid to say it but globalization needs to function under the rader in a somewhat secretive manner in order to operate effectively.
As difficult things might be for some people economically right now here in the US (people are still doing pretty good right now as well) I think our economy would be in severely worse shape right now (look at France as an example) if it wasn't for globalized manufacturing and competition, foreign investment into our country, and the fact foriegn countries are buying our bonds and inadvertantly keeping long term interest rates lower then they otherwise would in the process.
I would be willing to argue that its 'easier' for a modern/wealthy nation for fall back into a poor 3rd world status then it is for most 3rd world countries to become a vibrant modern nation with a large middle class.
Nobody ever said the road to prosperity only went one way.
Last edited by johnsocal; Apr 4, 2006 at 12:06 AM.
Registered User
Joined: Sep 1998
Posts: 4,320
From: Memphis
Re: Do you think a rise of protectionism would be good for GM and the US economy.
Globalization is inevitable, protectionism only delays it and in the end only causes our entry into the global economy to become further watered down.
It's going to hurt either way. When you take a rich somewhat isolated nation and begin to introduce it to a much poorer world, there is little good for the rich nation. I'm not saying we should be looking forward to it; but eventually it'll be for the greater good - the good of the world. And another side benefit is greater economic ties around the world - countries that have economic ties don't like to go to war with each other - it's not profitable.
Making the world 'as one' monetarily, IMO, is the only hope we have for eventually forming a relatively solid peace and possibly even a 'world culture'.
I know I sound like a nutcase, but it has always been a vision of mine.
It's going to hurt either way. When you take a rich somewhat isolated nation and begin to introduce it to a much poorer world, there is little good for the rich nation. I'm not saying we should be looking forward to it; but eventually it'll be for the greater good - the good of the world. And another side benefit is greater economic ties around the world - countries that have economic ties don't like to go to war with each other - it's not profitable.
Making the world 'as one' monetarily, IMO, is the only hope we have for eventually forming a relatively solid peace and possibly even a 'world culture'.
I know I sound like a nutcase, but it has always been a vision of mine.
Registered User
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 662
From: albany, ny
Re: Do you think a rise of protectionism would be good for GM and the US economy.
i dont think isolating us is a good idea and i understand that if china can make a widget for 1/2 of what we can make it here for its stupid for us to wast are time making it. im not am economist but i got to ask, it apears to me after world war 2 more and more american industry is dieing and if a company that was a number one auto maker and a big industrial power house if you dont mind me using that for a lack of beter words could go under then what does that mean for the rest of are industry here? were are becoming a society based on services instead of manufacturing we import way more then we export and it is killing are economy my big qestion is what happens when the last of are big industrys go under in this country do you people feel that this country's economy could be support by services only?
Registered User
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 3,180
From: Yadkinville, NC USA
Re: Do you think a rise of protectionism would be good for GM and the US economy.
Originally Posted by Threxx
Globalization is inevitable, protectionism only delays it and in the end only causes our entry into the global economy to become further watered down.
It's going to hurt either way. When you take a rich somewhat isolated nation and begin to introduce it to a much poorer world, there is little good for the rich nation. I'm not saying we should be looking forward to it; but eventually it'll be for the greater good - the good of the world. And another side benefit is greater economic ties around the world - countries that have economic ties don't like to go to war with each other - it's not profitable.
Making the world 'as one' monetarily, IMO, is the only hope we have for eventually forming a relatively solid peace and possibly even a 'world culture'.
I know I sound like a nutcase, but it has always been a vision of mine.
It's going to hurt either way. When you take a rich somewhat isolated nation and begin to introduce it to a much poorer world, there is little good for the rich nation. I'm not saying we should be looking forward to it; but eventually it'll be for the greater good - the good of the world. And another side benefit is greater economic ties around the world - countries that have economic ties don't like to go to war with each other - it's not profitable.
Making the world 'as one' monetarily, IMO, is the only hope we have for eventually forming a relatively solid peace and possibly even a 'world culture'.
I know I sound like a nutcase, but it has always been a vision of mine.
Bottom line is, there will never be a total blending of the masses. There is too much difference in cultures, beliefs, and convictions for it to happen. There may be some tolerance, but there will never be acceptance of all by all.
Shiite v Sunni
Shiite and Sunni v Kerd
Bosnians v Chechans
Muslim v Jew
Palestinian v Jew
Muslim v Christian
North and South Korea
North and South Vietnam
Pakistan and India
Africa is a total civil disaster
Egypt is totally lost for identity recently - seems like they hate everybody
It goes on and on and on...
As long as people are so convicted to their beliefs that they refuse to see others as acceptable - and they are willing to fight and die promoting their beliefs - the world will never become unified. Only the most civilized nations can hope to unify themselves with monetary and legislative policy - the rest of the world will insist on trading rocks, chickens, and goats, and will fight to the death if told to do anything else. I fear these nations most - for what should be "obvious" reasons these days.
Don't want to bring religion into this discusiion because it's not the place to ignite that issue, but when you are dealing with countries like Iran and Iraq - countries where religion and the government are woven tightly together - you can't help but deal with it, and it's almost always a lose-lose proposition. Those nations don't see you as trying to "help" their economy or government by changing policy - they only see you trying to dilute or even destroy their religious faction, and they fight you because of their perceived views.
I would indeed love to see the entire world share a state of wealth and coexistence that leaves no child starving for food, no soul in need of healthcare, no municipality without safe, clean water to drink, and a decent supply of food for all. But I have to be honest about the reality of it... it's not going to happen any time soon. Maybe my great-grandkids will see that day... if we don't destroy the earth before it gets here first.
So it boils down to this for me...
1) ABOVE ALL OTHERS - take care of yourself and your country. If you are religious, the bible says you must be healthy yourself before you can help others. If you are not religious, it only makes sense that you fortify your home position for your own protection and prosperity before you concern yourself with what others are doing. Either way, this should be top priority for us (and any other nation FTM).
2) Develop alliances with those nations who share your POV, your policies, your environmental concerns, your legislative reasonings, and your economic values. The more compatible they are with you, the better the alliance should be, all the way to complete free-trade, open borders, and judiciary procedures. This is as close to "globalization" as I can imagine.
3) Communicate and try to bring other nations to see the values and policies that we deem irrefutable - and why. As they accept and adopt these policies, we accept and adopt them as allies. If they refuse to accept these values and policies, then we refuse to trade and allow commerce with them.
4) Lastly, all industrialized nations OWE IT to themselves and the world to try to develop all nations to a certain minimum standard. The way to show ethnicities that you are "going the right way" is to lead by example. We should be trying to provide methods of generating clean water and food for every nation. We should be trying to annul the spread of AIDS in 3rd world countries. We should be eradicating Tuberculosis world-wide. And so on.
If we establish that we are truely interested in making other people's nations a better place to live - WITH NO STRINGS ATTACHED - we stand a better chance of winning their hearts, and subsequently their minds.
There is one caveat to this daydream though... GREED.
There will always be the element of greed that will exploit one party or another, and this (in my opinion) is the biggest problem with globalization today. The intent is not to help fellow humans live happier, healthier lives the world-over... the intent is for the rich to exploit the poorest in the world for their further gain.
Any time an American company subjects a Chinese man (or African man, or Malaysian man, etc) to chemicals and processes that we KNOW are cancer-causing or health-risks here in the states, they are violating a cannon of ethical behavior in the interest of increased profits - and it happens every day. One excuse I hear often is "Well, it's not illegal to use "chemical x" in China" despite the fact that the US banned it's use 10 years ago here (in ref to Tri-chlor 1-1-1). Like THAT makes it right.
OK - todays rant is over. Obviously, I am not a proponent of globalism as it is occuring today. It may indeed be best for the world as a whole because MANY of the world's poorest will see a marginal improvemnt in their quality of life, but the rest of us (the middle-class working stiffs like me and my family) are the ones who are giving-up the most to see it happen - NOT the wealthy in this nation or Europe. While it doesn't really scare me too bad for my life span, it terrifies me for what my kid will have to endure, and even worse for my grandkids and after. They will have a tough fight on their hands just to live the lifestyle that I enjoy today, and that doesn't bode well with me because I don't lead an eccentric life at all by US/European standards.
Registered User
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 1,808
From: FL/MI
Re: Do you think a rise of protectionism would be good for GM and the US economy.
Originally Posted by GRNcamaro
i dont think isolating us is a good idea and i understand that if china can make a widget for 1/2 of what we can make it here for its stupid for us to wast are time making it. im not am economist but i got to ask, it apears to me after world war 2 more and more american industry is dieing and if a company that was a number one auto maker and a big industrial power house if you dont mind me using that for a lack of beter words could go under then what does that mean for the rest of are industry here? were are becoming a society based on services instead of manufacturing we import way more then we export and it is killing are economy my big qestion is what happens when the last of are big industrys go under in this country do you people feel that this country's economy could be support by services only?
