China and the U.S.

.
Okay, you made your points, but what's your conclusion?

Therefore what?

I understand global economy - the cheapest gets the work. And China is learning that fast. Remember most forms of government will be the world leader for a number of years.. I think the average is 200 ... Look back in History - Britian - france - italy - Greece - they are were at the top of the world - then someone else took over... Right now the USA is losing its grip and will lose to the Chinese :-( this will make Oz happy...

So I guess someday - BC will be the Economy Center of the world ... after a few million years pass..

But everything comes to an end - and Oz will be happy when he/it see the down fall of the USA.

China is not a major problem for the US

Most of what China produces is lo-tech (clothes and plastic goods). If all Chinese imports were halted tomorrow these goods would simply have to be imported from south America, India, or eastern Europe.

Japan was a much bigger threat to US manufacturing in the 80s as they were competing in the same markets (cars, hi-tech)

If China keeps modernising, in the future America could have a serious competitor, but this is a long way off.

.
I don't care about China. How many times must I say it? I don't care about China. Are you that dense? I don't care about China. Go ahead and criticize me, but I don't care about China.

You want to debate, you ramble on and on about China - which I don't care about - but you draw no conclusion.

And you didn't prove me wrong about Kuwait. Because I never said anything one way or the other. And I don't care about China

Geesh, what a looney toon.

Oh, by the way I DON'T CARE ABOUT CHINA!!!!

By the way again - you're a real ass.

.
You've indicated on several occasions that you want to "debate me" (I'm sure you have your reasons), but in this case you've selected a topic (China) that I don't really care about (or have studied to any degree), nor have you identified yourself with any particular position.

Sure, you've rambled off a bunch of assertions, and you've given a bunch of "what if" scenarios, but what the hell's your point?

If you want to debate something, be clear on what it is you want to debate.

For example, what are the two sides to the issue you're trying to identify, and which side are you taking? Based on what you've said thus far, I have no idea on either.

(And be very succinct and specific.)

So there ya' go.

.
I suppose that, in principle, you and I may be in agreement as to the potential threat China may pose, both economically and militarily, perhaps in the very near future. However, do we therefore, as a nation, attempt to isolate and refuse to do business with China - like we have done with Cuba? I think not. Do we forbid American companies from opening manufacturing facilities in China? I think not. Do we refuse to purchase goods from China? I think not.

China becoming a military threat is one thing. In fact, it could be argued that the most looming threat China poses right now involves Taiwan. And quite frankly, even though the USA has vowed to defend Taiwan, I'm not so sure we should - or could. If Taiwan was absorbed in totality by China, quite frankly, I wouldn't care. If it doesn't, again, I wouldn't care. As far as I'm concerned, it's not worth going to war over - especially with China. (We have to pick our battles very carefully.)

As far as becoming an economic threat, there's not a whole lot we can do about it - except compete in a global marketplace. Like it or not, the world is evolving into one with a global economy. And that's quite different than "one economy", as you suggested. But we have only two choices - be participants or be observers. And I believe the days of isolationism are far behind us. Given those two choices, it would serve our interests much better to be participants.

So there you go. If, as you suggest, that building manufacturing facilities in China becomes a threat sometime in the future, then we will just have to deal with it at the time. After all, the alternative, which is forbidding such free enterprise and participation in a world economy, isn't that great a prospect either. Therefore, we deal with the known reality, as it exists today, and deal with the future as it eventually unfolds.

.
After a thousand (or more) years of upheaval and oppression in the middle-east, and after seeing the spread of world-wide terrorism which was conceived and born in the middle-east, the reasons I articulated above show how vital it is to plant the seeds of democracy in that region.

Not only is Iraq a part of the war on terrorism, but it's a VITAL component to defeat terrorism in the longer term.

Just as the western world was afraid of the "domino affect" with the spread of communism in the 50s and 60s, so are the Islamic radicals afraid of such a domino affect when it comes to the spread of democracy.

Make no mistake about it, if we can't plant the seeds of democracy and the free-market system in the middle-east, our war on terrorism will be lost.

I figured I'd get a jump on the lefty loonies and Oz wannabes on this board and state your thought process.

Max,

I see that it did not take you long to totally miss the point. We were debating if US companies placing manufacturing facilities posed a security risk to our nation. All you want to do is debate free enterprise. Nothing is " free ", Max. Nothing. There are limitations on anything we do, but you are of the mind that companies should be free to do as they please, completely unencumbered by laws, national security, or decency. You were probably one of the first to scream about selling technological secrets to China under the Clinton administration. ( shall I gather your posts? )Yes, Max, companies were also involved. Do you now suggest that companies should not have done so? You contradict yourself Max. Please, explain this for me.

Let the markets decide, Max? How extremely naive you appear to be Max. What choice do consumers have when all corporations are doing the same thing? This is a domino effect, Max. Each corporation will, in succession, be forced to do as corporations before them to " remain competitive ". Show some thought and foresight Max. Wipe your eyes free of the $ long enough to see beyond the $.

Since you changed the debate topic, let us talk about business set free to do as they please. Companies despise legislation of any sort against them. Companies only favor legislation that supports them. A bit one sided isn't it Max?

1. Corporations support tort reform because lawsuits force them to make a viable and safe product. Yes, there are frivolous lawsuits and some of those frivolous lawsuits are company against company. There are no tort reform amendments that deal with these lawsuits. There are also no tort reform amendments that will deal with companies suing individuals. There are no tort reform amendments that limit individuals from suing individuals. The only tort reform amendments are against individuals suing companies. I believe in the separation of powers and the three branches of our government. I believe in the check and balance system set up by our forefathers. Do you think the legislative branch should supersede the judicial branch? The right to a fair trial? Cases tried before they are heard based on the political whims of which party is in office? Tell me if you support our system of government Max. I want to hear you say if you support it or denounce it. You can not have it both ways Max.

2. No company wants to be forced to adhere to environmental laws. They are not concerned if they have a negative impact on our health. ( That is what the health industry is for? ) They are not concerned if it costs us more in health care than it costs them in preventative care.

3. No company wants to pay wages Max. Wages are the first thing cut when economic troubles befall a company. Sometimes they can be financially sound and say they do so to " remain competitive ". These idiots do not seem to realize that it is wages paid to workers that allows them to have a market base to sell their products to. Are you such an idiot Max?

4. Companies to not like governments to interfere with their ability to make profits. Companies feel they should be placed ahead of governments and their citizens. Do you feel the same way Max? Should this be the case, scrap all forms of government and let out corporations lead us down any path they choose to take us. Is this your desire Max?

I can continue on with many more examples, Max, but I fear you will say I only ramble. May you die exceedingly rich and happy. Your children and grandchildren may not be nearly as able to do so.

This debate is over for us Max. All you want to debate is if the free market should govern us all. So you are not confused, I oppose this. Good night and sweet dreams Max.

I'm not an economic expert, but to me it looks like loosing jobs on US ground (to China and alike), means less buying power. I see 90% of the market is full with chinese products, sooner or later if this trend (sending jobs overseas continues and more and more jobs are lost, these products will start sitting on the shelves, so what's the deal ?

.
A long time has passed since I've seen your name around here. I hope you had a nice vacation (or whatever).

As far as "not caring" about China, it's not that I'm not concerned about world events, as I certainly am. But in this case, I don't care about debating a guy on the economic growth of China. Hey, China is a sovereign nation, and they have a right to build their economy to compete in a global market-place any way they want - just like the rest of us. End of story. What's to discuss?

And to fully understand my "I don't care" comment, which was really born out of exasperation, you would have had to been privy to the previous discussions pctech and I have had on China. He's really quite annoying - kinda' like a little kid poking a bigger kid trying to egg him into an argument or fight. But as you probably noticed, he was quite disingenuous about it. (And that attitude - isn't it just the most arrogant and haughty you've ever seen?) Actually, I think you might agree that I replied quite appropriately, and with a pretty reasonable argument if I say so myself.

And I agree with you 100 percent, that the looming "economic bloc" in that part of the world will be something we will have to contend with. But whereas pctech sees it as a threat and wants to prevent them from becoming an economic power, I would prefer to see it as competition in the free-market place. (But there I go again, getting on my "free-market" bandwagon.)

I tend to agree about the consumer's choice, but that's only a natural thing. It's hard to convince someone (especially that we are talking masses) that buying cheaper goods (made in 3rd world countries) is not such a good thing after all. I think the companies are (would be) much more in the position to control this, but they are just more than willing to satisfy the customer, especially because of the competition. You cannot survive on the market if at least one of your competition is doing work/production in China for ex.
More than that I think this should be a government/legal decision if the balance (prices vs. job los) starts to get worst.

but bottom line is americans are loosing hundreds of thousands of jobs. Not only are those affected, required to lower their living standards but paying welfare can be a burden after a certain point, especially that the working class (that is paying the taxes) is getting smaller in numbers.

I tend to be a liberal, but still, you cannot let everything loose and out of control. I don't see China as a military threat in the near future, that would not be my primary concern, but jobs and buying power would.

Nuff said, nature.

Well reports are that al these companies that are outsourcing jobs are doing so in an almost exploiting or 'sweat shop' fashion.

IT jobs go to India, where they work in a fiilthy room where they are practically elboe to elbos and working without staff washrooms, clean environment etc.

THis is NOT a productive way to run a company and companies will soon learn that it is worth the extra money to keep IT in the country with better working conditions that provide greater production. As it stands, it is said that many companies are outsrourcing but losing productivity due to substandard working conditions and it's only a matter of time before keeping it local will be more beneficial.

A good oint raised regarding outsourcing in China was that we are paying to build modern facilities in another country that empowers their own people and not ours. This also saves millions in construction costs for these facilities which are often closed or sold after a short period of time. Again the Chinese are benfitting from ourcorporations building facilities in their countries, we are not seeing those benefits in our own countries though. It was suggested that outsourcing to Chnia would not be so bad if we at least forced THEM to build facilities and provide places for our companies to provide employment in their country.

So let's stop building manufacturing plants in China, lets have THEM build them and then we can pay their citizens to work in them.

Then again, we could do that here and employ our own citizens instead.

You cannot remove employment and fair wages from citizens and then have them purchase your company's products that were made in another country.

.
When did you become an ass:

1. Yes, as it was uncalled for sarcasm.

2. Yes. However, I instill a sense of personal responsibility in my son, and he will, undoubtedly, be a self-starter and not one to blame others for his outcome.

3. Yes, because I didn't change the discussion topic. This is just a cutesy little ploy employed by you to take your little jab - and after all, it's quite obvious that that's your true motivation. And if you shout your mouth, opened your ears, and opened your mind, and really tried to understand what I wrote, you wouldn't have missed my reply.

4. Yes, because it was a rhetorical question implying a negative. However, my loyalties lie as follows: 1. God; 2. My family; 3. Myself; (Note: 3 and 4 are a combined sense of taking personal responsibility for myself and my actions, not blaming others for my short-comings, or not expecting others to pay for my life.) 4. My country (the good ol' USA); 5. My fellow man - charitable giving; 6. My job; 7. All the rest.

5. Yes, because I never contradicted myself, nor could you show that I did.

6. No, because you obviously don't understand my sentiment. But yes, I do believe companies should be put above government. We are, after all, a government of the people, and companies are created by people. The government is beholden to us, not the other way around, at least in the USA.

7. No, because that just shows your lack of ability to truly understand. Go ahead and show all of my prior posts you want. As I said, I'm confident in my consistency, and I've not contradicted myself.

8. Yes - that attitude. And by suggesting it yourself, you've admitted to advancing "that attitude" intentionally. And it's rather childish, don't you think? Not to mention disingenuous to your stated desire to have a civil discussion. I guess you just showed your lack of honesty.

9. Asked and answered.

10. How could (or why would) I possibly comment on any aspect of your life not associated with your conversations with me? That's really a silly suggestion.

now I know some people are head over hels about religion, but over your FAMILY?? You see and touch your family every day, they exist beyond a shadown of a doubt. You still place a being that you have neither touched nor seen , nor has anyone else in the history of mankind ahead of your VERY OWN FAMILY!?!

I understand ui have faith in your Lord and I would NEVER chastize you for your beliefs no matter how much venemous garbage you puke here daily, but for a human being who lies and breathes in a human world to place FAITH over and above his wife and children REALLY puts it all in perspective. Your concerns for your fellowman and the welfare of others is truly lip service on your part. YOU and YOUR God are first.

.
You presume too much - and judge way too much. But what else is not new?

You forget the several references I've made to my opinion that God and religion do not necessarily have to be related. But you keep making that connection - one that doesn't "have" to be made, at least not for me. I've never shared my definition of "God" with you, but you presume to do it for me. (But you falsely presume things and stereotype people all the time.) In fact, I don't consider myself "religious" at all, and I rarely attend church services. (And when I do, the particular denomination often changes.)

You've also probably noticed that I religiously avoid the "religious" and/or God/god discussions.

However, I will say this. I believe that a person's time on Earth, as we both know it to be, is just phase two in a "bigger picture". Phase one was conception and the time spent in my mother's womb. That "incubation" period, usually lasting around 9 months, prepares us to survive in phase two. I am currently "incubating" in phase two, which will prepare me for the inevitable phase three. What that may be, I have no idea. But I do believe there is a "phase three".

As far as putting that above anything else, what choice do I have? I enter the world naked and alone, and I will leave the world naked (even without the "earthly" body) and alone. Those are part of my inner-most thoughts. And it's not that I choose to put them first, but it just happens by default. After all, an action - any action - is always preceded by a thought. And who, except I alone, can be part of my thoughts? (But you presume to put yourself there - how arrogant is that?)

Actually, my numbers one, two and three (God, family, and self), are so closely connected that they're mere subsets of one another. "Putting God first", is, in a simplistic way, my desire to just live a decent life.

Okay, go ahead, find fault in something I said - as you usually attempt to do.

As far as your suggested "lip service"? Well, feel free to lip service my ass.

And without provocation.

You CLAIM: [i]"You forget the several references I've made to my opinion that God and religion do not necessarily have to be related. But you keep making that connection - one that doesn't "have" to be made, at least not for me."[/i]

First of all I did not equate you to a spcific religion, my use of the word 'religion' probably doesn't fit when I was actually referring to your faith, as noted later in my post when referring to your God or god and faith.

I suppose what I SHOULD have said was that meant was that I couldn't believe you placed YOUR faith ahead of your family. I found when I had my son, he WAS my faith.

Yes I have noticed that you purposely avoid such discussions and feel fine about that, you don't have to discuss personal subjct if you don't choose to.

You suggested that you had never disussed your faith here but in essence you have several times and we have pretty much agreed on most points regarding faith. Such as inner strength and motivation and everyone has a fath of SOME sort even if not in a specific religion.

Your simplistic post did not echo this though, especially when using the word God as opposed to god, with God indicating a certain religious icon and not general faith in 'A' god.

Being a Scout leader you should know these two spellings have very different meanings. Actually you guys haven't got that far with things like that et I don't thnk. Whereas in Canada, the scout promise was chaned to read "MY god, the Queen and my fellow man"

I assume the Queen will eventually be dropped too if enough people raise a stir, but that's what progression is about, changing our old ways to meet the requirements of a new multicultural world.

Your opening cand closing shots at my character (or comments if you wish) are completely uncalled for and not representative of the fashion I had posted in at all.yet you always say I am mean and nasty towards people. Have you read what your friends Skipper and Sleepingdog have been posting?

I could say, Bush has reallyturned me around, he was right al along and yet I doubted him.

The reply would be some ridiculous name calling slander against me. Yet I am being mean and nasty.

My comments about providing lip service wre also not out of line, you always say how you would support your fellowman, then you say you would place God first. God, not my god.

You have indicated to all that you faith lies in God, as many others do, and that you pace God first, just as many others do. Now I would suggest that if it is really important that you ar not misunderstood, then saying I place my faith in my god first would even be seen as similar but 'my god' does not attach you to any specific religious deity.

It has been very clearly discussed here before that God is equated to the Christian God and almighty creator. The G being captalized is an indicator of the deity known in Christianity as God (roughly, the Christian creator of the universe and all that is within it), am I right?

To th bst of my understanding:

Whereas 'god' , is a generic term for a deity or higher being that someone places faith in. Romans had many gods, Christians have but one God.

Indians have many gods, Christians have but one God. God is a noun, it is a proper name.

I hate to disappoint you with you predetermined outcome of my response but it just goes to prove what little you really know about some people.

Sullyman,

I am well aware that China has long been a threat to us just from their sheer numbers. Their military has long been been substandard, but that is fast changing ( read the supplied links ).

I do not propose to stiffle China's economic growth. I have already said to allow China to grow at it's OWN rate of economic growth without our U. S. corporations building manufacturing plants for them. I have stated my reasons for this already.

The company I work for DOES build systems for our clients. Most of our builds are for business clients and we tell them up front that we do NOT build low end systems. They do not need the headaches associated with them we do not have the time to support the higher failure rates of low end systems. Our clients understand this and do not balk at higher up front costs that are more cost effective over the life of the system. We also almost exclusively buy retail parts that have a full manufacturter's warranty as opposed to the 30 - 90 day warranties of nearly all bulk and OEM parts. In other words, we do not do it cheap, we do it right. As far as where the parts come from, nearly all come from China and Taiwan simply because this is where they are manufactured. Seldom is there a " Made in the USA " choice, otherwise our purchased parts would bare that label. As it is, we have NO choice.

No, Highlander. Max misrepresents my words. True, GM spending $3,000,000,000 dollars to build a new plant in China sparked my interests, but it is not GM alone that I speak of. Max is aware of this. Max misdirects you. My concern is with ANY U.S. company building manufacturing plants in China. Read the opening comments of the topic and read the links that are supplied. Max misleads you. I know not if it is by his own design or by his own confusion of the topic. Either way, Max is not speaking the truth of what this topic is about.

.
National security and ideology are indeed related.

For example, can you name one instance, in the past hundred years, of two independent democracies waging a major conflict against one another? If your answer in no, then the relation becomes obvious. All of the major wars are seemingly between those nations who want it and those that don't.

.
But it is YOU who has fallen very short.

.
As you, yourself, have alluded to, our past discussions all started by your objection to GM investing in China. (And YOU can provide links, remember?) You further called this GM investment "outsourcing". You even used these past discussions as your premise for starting this current one.

Here is the full text of your comment (that started this whole thing):

"This is not a likely scenario. Shareholders demand the greatest profitability of the company. This usually comes from outsourcing to other nations and/or building plants in other nations. Major investors look to companies that have already done this or plan to do so in the near future. Inspite (sic) of recent major tax cuts to corporations, GM has announced it is spending $3,000,000,000 in China for a new manufacturing facility and many of the future Cadillacs will be built there. Obviously, tax cuts have not detered (sic) their decission (sic) to move overseas. Tax cuts, more than likely, helped to finance this move......"

(Note: The scenario pctech reefers to is when TheChas suggested that, "allowing companies to be more competitive would result in more jobs in the US. Or, at least fewer jobs moving off-shore.")

Link:

https://www.techrepublic.com.com/5208-6230-0.html?forumID=8&threadID=155025&messageID=1623163

I then suggested to you that it wasn't "outsourcing". Moreover, I suggested that if GM didn't do it, they would be lax in their obligation (to both their employees and shareholders) to compete in a global market-place because dozens of other auto manufacturers, including Volkswagen, Toyota, etc., were also investing in China.

To be exact, I said, "General Motors is indeed investing 3 billion dollars (over the next 3 years) in China, but not to build automobiles in China so they can be sold in the USA. They are doing it to remain a global competitor in the largest growing automobile market in the world.......The Chinese automobile manufacturing sector has not been able to keep up with the growing demand for new automobiles, so they've (the Chinese government) been inviting foreign companies to help meet that demand. The German company, Volkswagen, has been the major foreign manufacturer building automobiles in China for the Chinese consumer, and they are currently the number one supplier of cars in China, holding about a 38 percent market share......"

The link to the full text of my answer:

https://www.techrepublic.com.com/5208-6230-0.html?forumID=8&threadID=155025&messageID=1623496

That's where this dialogue between you and me all started. Do you deny that?

You can provide links, remember?

You then went into your silly theory about GM's plant being seized by the Chinese government.

And you've never admitted that your initial assertion was incorrect and/or flawed, but you've built your entire arguments on that assertion.

.
When I said, "...The scenario pctech reefers to..."

Of course, I deserve that "(sic)" because it should have read, "refers to".

(But then again, perhaps I was speculating on the substance that was influencing pctech's thought process.)

.
To answer your question about buying GM stock, I would say that I can't, of course, specifically answer your question - since I won't presume to speak for any GM employee or non-employee buying their stock.

However, considering the fact that most GM employees have a nice retirement plan through the auto workers union, many of them could, if they chose to, supplement that retirement plan with individual stock purchases. I would further assume that GM, as many large corporations do, even offer shares of their stock to employees at a discounted rate and without brokerage commissions. But even assuming there is no discounted rate, GM does indeed have a direct purchase plan (that even you or I could take advantage of) that will allow the purchase of shares without the added expense of brokerage fees, and offers a DRIP (dividend reinvestment plan) on top of that.

And consider this. Consider the GM employee (or non-employee) who spends 25 years working on the assembly line (or else where). Consider that he/she makes a decent wage ($20 - $30 per hour). Consider that he/she could "invest" $100 out of each and every paycheck to directly purchase GM stock - the company he/she works for and believes in. Consider that the stated amount would add-up to $2,400 "real dollars" invested each and every year. Consider that some months, that $200 would buy 4 shares, some months it would buy 5 shares, and some months it would buy 6, 7, 8 or more shares. Consider the merits of dollar cost averaging over the employment period of that person, perhaps 25 years or more. Consider that GM stock has a dividend yield of almost 5 percent. Consider that GM offers a dividend reinvestment program. Consider that GM stock has split once or twice over the employment life of that person. Consider that, on average - especially considering a reinvestment of that 5 percent dividend - that the value of that portfolio is growing right along with the growing number of shares it holds. Consider that purchasing only a few shares each and every payday, for 25 years, reinvesting the dividends, could result in the ownership of thousands of shares - perhaps even over ten thousand.

Now, I'm not going to crunch those numbers, but I might suggest that an individual employee (or non-employee), buying only a few shares of stock each and every payday, for the entire length of time he/she works for GM, would have a very nice retirement supplement - over and above the already nice retirement benefits provided by the company, and over and above social security benefits. In fact, if a person followed the plan I outlined, I would guess that the value of that portfolio, in today's dollars, would be closer to a half million dollars (maybe more) than it would be to zero dollars.

All on buying only a few measly shares of stock.

And this does not consider the benefits people like you and I (non-GM employees) could realize, because any individual could do the same thing, and because I would further suggest that a huge majority of GM stock is held by institutional investors - the ones owned by our own 401(k) plans.

----------

"It's all about the money" for me, you say in your condescending tone?

Well, on whose money do you plan to retire? Your own, or your children's - or perhaps some other stranger?

Or perhaps you, in all your infinite wisdom, have discovered a way to get through life and retire without "money".

If you say that money is not an important part - indeed a vital part - of your own life, I'd call you a damn liar.

The difference between people like you and people like me is that I want to earn and save my own money, while you want to just take it away from others.

Here's another one missing the point. Just after reading about the "benefits" of "leveling the field", here comes this other guy, saying that actually offshore-outsourcing is not bad, 'cause there still are plenty of jobs in the US. Well of course there are, it's only that there are LESS than before and maybe he or me are not (yet) affected by this, but talking on a social scale it's still something I would put in the "bad" column.