Americans, Buy Chinese!

[mateo]

In today's "free market" hysteria, to suggest we bring home American businesses to American soil considered heresy. How dare we actually give a rat's ass about the American worker? And if you dare say something with the words "American worker" attached, you're labeled as a socialist. The blue collar worker is the heart and soul of this nation, and to lock him/her out in the cold while an evil totalitarian regime hordes American money and uses slave labor and political prisoners as a work force is disgusting. This all hinges on disease of greed. This disease infects the human brain and makes us decadent and wanting for more than we need. Meanwhile, the nation languishes, and we all collectively play our fiddles while Rome burns.

[AmericanPride]

Labor is an important function of the market system. We cannot afford to disregard its important capacities, nor can we ignore the vast outpouring of our wealth into the coffers of our enemy. Our common American identity is superior than free market "ideals" and we should not limit our ability to maintain our existence because of an irrational fear of violating its so-called "principles". An American businessman and an American worker share a common and unique bond that transcend any economic relationship.

America first. We should call upon our people to return home.

[mateo]

How would you suggest American corporations be convinced that it's in their best interest to return to the the United States? James made a valid point earlier stating that corporations do not have an obligation to anyone but their share holders. If shipping the means of production overseas or south of the border will increase profit and yield greater returns to stockholders, how do we get through to these people that loyalty first and foremost to the homeland should be their priority?

Something else hit me as I was thinking about this. If company goes public with its stock, in theory any American can own vast shares in that company. Do you feel that this makes our argument moot, in that even if a company moves to China or Mexico, any American can still profit from such a move?

[AmericanPride]

Owen-
Businessmen are savvy and, for the most part, rational individuals. They respond to incentives, not arguments. We can only compel them through initiatives, the extent of which can reach anywhere. We can be as simple as offering tax breaks to businesses that maintain their operations in America, or we can go so far as to remove the citizenship of a company's executives, employees, and stockholders that "relocate" abroad. It all depends on how high we place our emphasis for their return. But I question their committment as Americans when they freely and willingly leave Americans unemployed and put to work our enemies. Is that not treason?

A company with public stock can also be owned by foreigners. The Bank of America, for instance, is not American at all and is owned by Saudis. This does not make our argument moot. It only illustrates the danger so-called "free" economics pose to the American nation if left unrestrained. Anyone can profit from outsourcing, but Americans will always lose.

[mateo]

My thoughts exactly, Chris. I think for once we are in complete agreement here.

Tax breaks to loyal and patriotic businesses are certainly a great way to convince corporations to stay in America, but do you feel that a big enough tax break could be offered, one that would make up for the loss in profit a company will face after moving operations back to America? In a perfect world, the idea of being a patriot and supporting America should be reason enough, but as I stated earlier, the sickness of greed infects the mind and blinds us to what really matters.

[FightingFalcon]

What you both are advocating is a waste of money.

This is why we do not let emotions get in the way of rational thinking.

You want to spend tax payer money on a needless program, e.g. rewarding companies who "hire American".

The government already spends too much money as it is. You want to spend even more money on a ridiculous program simply so that we can hire more Americans and fewer foreignors. In the end everything stays the same but the government is stuck with a huge subsidy to private companies while we (e.g. the taxpayers) get nothing in return.

Sorry, but I'd rather just let corporations do what they think is in their best interest.

[mateo]

Employed Americans means more people paying taxes, James. There is no perfect course of aciton, but there is the right and patriotic course of action.

[AmericanPride]

James-
What is wrong with the government spending money if it is on noble and useful projects? Were the highways a waste of money? Is the Army? What about developing the internet? Or plastics? Or tissues? Television? The space program?

Providing better jobs to Americans will lessen the need for government spending in Medicare, welfare, and other programs for the impoverished. With 5% unemployment, it is obvious that people are not poor because they are not working. They are poor because they are not paid enough.

[FightingFalcon]

Patriotic course of action?

I only care about what is going to help defend America - Americans with jobs does not concern me. It isn't part of the mandate given to the government in the Constitution. That is left up to the private sector.

OK, so we get more people paying taxes. But the government also has to pay corporations to make up the difference. The government is going to have to reimburse a corporation for paying an additional (at least) $10 an hour per worker, plus 7.5% of their wage, which goes towards Social Security. The way SS works is, you pay 7.5% out of your paycheck while the company pays 7.5% of your wage that doesn't show up in your paycheck. Most Americans don't know that....

That's thousands of dollars per worker. You're talking about a program that would cost the government billions. Why? Just so we can lower the unemployment rate 1%?

No thanks.

[FightingFalcon]

americanpride2 said:

James-
What is wrong with the government spending money if it is on noble and useful projects? Were the highways a waste of money? Is the Army? What about developing the internet? Or plastics? Or tissues? Television? The space program?

Providing better jobs to Americans will lessen the need for government spending in Medicare, welfare, and other programs for the impoverished. With 5% unemployment, it is obvious that people are not poor because they are not working. They are poor because they are not paid enough.

I don't care if the government spends money - if that money is spent on something that they have a right to spend it on, e.g. what the Constitution says. No where in the Constitution does it say that the government has to ensure that everyone has a job. That's ridiculous.

Better jobs for Americans? You're talking about customer service jobs - dead-end, bottom of the barrel jobs that will get paid minimum wage at best.

Have you ever stopped to think that the unemployment rate exists not because there aren't jobs out there (which simply isn't true) but rather people just don't want to work?

Anyone who says they can't find a job is lying to you. They either 1) haven't looked at all, or 2) found a job and didn't like it.

Tough luck. It's not my concern.

[AmericanPride]

James-
Sustained economic prosperity is a necessary component of national success. The world of economics is not independent of our national concerns, and like politics, culture, and the military, should be subject to the same standards of necessity. Working Americans should concern you. Americans not working means Americans dependent on the government. It means Americans disenfranchised and dissatisfied. It means instability and ultimately it means revolution.

Jobs are available. But these jobs are the bottom of the barrel. They offer no opportunities. They are degrading. They are the work of teenagers and immigrants. As I stated, it is obvious the problem is that Americans are not paid enough - not that jobs are unavailable. When respectable jobs return to America, so will respect return to Americans.

[FightingFalcon]

"Americans dependent on the government."

That's your probrlem.

You think the government is the answer to the problem. Government IS the problem.

"Sustained economic prosperity is a necessary component of national success. The world of economics is not independent of our national concerns, and like politics, culture, and the military, should be subject to the same standards of necessity."

Spoken like a true Fascist.

EDIT: Do you know what jobs are being out-sourced? Customer service jobs. Ever call up a credit card company? You're calling New Delhi and talking to "Bob".

These are dead-end bottom of the barrel jobs that are being shipped overseas. Similar jobs are available in America today and no one wants them.

Why do you think if they came back to America people would suddenly jump at the chance to take that job? They wouldn't - you even said it yourself. No one wants these jobs.

[AmericanPride]

Americans dependent on the government is the problem of all tax-paying Americans.

You facilitate the problem by preventing Americans from holding higher-paying and respectable jobs. Customer-service jobs are the jobs being exported now. Manufacturing jobs have already left.

The government is an instrument, to be used like any other.

[FightingFalcon]

"Government is not reason. It is not eloquence. It is a force, like fire: a dangerous servant and a terrible master." - George Washington

Government is evil and should be avoided at all costs.

The less power that it has, the better.

"Americans dependent on the government is the problem of all tax-paying Americans."

Again, that's your problem. You assume that because people don't have a job, the government will take care of them. Why?

[AmericanPride]

A single quote from George Washington is not a suicide pact. At any cost? Even the price of our own destruction?

You ask why I assume the government will take care of the poor. Here's why: because it does. You can't deny the existence of Medicare and welfare, and the countless other programs. You want to simulatenously destroy these programs and erase the only opportunity these people have: work. You should think harder on the consequences. You are in a dilemma. Call businesses back home or have the government spend money on the poor?