When Barack Obama first ran for the Presidency, we had only a dim idea of what his goals were and what he really meant by "change". Nor were we fully aware of how he would lead the nation to attain his rather vague ends.
Now we know what his leadership does not encompass. In particular, he has not been honest and transparent about our very real problems, especially that of the unrelenting rise of a dangerous and crushing debt.
In this week-end's edition of the Wall Street Journal ("Notable & Quotable"), Sen. Tom Coburn (R., Okla.) is quoted from a letter that he sent to the White House Office of Management and Budget on Feb. 26. It reads as follows:
"The administration is warning sequestration may force the laying off or furloughing of air traffic controllers, border patrol officers, food inspectors, Transportation Security Administration screeners or civilians supporting our men and women in combat in Afghanistan. I would suggest the better approach is to consolidate duplicative positions with overlapping responsibilities and nearly identical jobs."
"In just the past two years, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) has identified more than 1,362 duplicative programs accounting for at least $364.5 billion in federal spending every single year...."
"During a time of budget cuts, it is irresponsible to pay two or more people to do the same job, while laying off other employees in essential positions performing critical duties."
In an article titled "Obama Is Playing a New Game"in the same edition of the Journal, Peggy Noonan states in part:
"Past presidents, certainly since Ronald Reagan, went over the heads of the media to win the people, to get them to contact Congress and push Congress to deal. Fine, and fair enough. But Mr. Obama goes to the people to get them to enhance his position by hating Republicans. He's playing only to the polls, not to Congress, not to get the other side to the bargaining table. He doesn't even like the bargaining table. He doesn't like bargaining."
There have been numerous and substantial ideas on how to fix our fiscal problems. Among them are cuts in spending, elimination of unnecessary and duplicative programs, a balanced budget amendment, changes to entitlement programs and tax reform.
In an article in Friday's (Mar. 1, 2013) titled "The GOP Takes Back Tax Reform", Kimberley Strassel states that the Republicans are ready to make tax reform their "signature issue". She points out that there are many pitfalls in this effort and tough votes ahead for such topics as tax breaks for business and for charitable and mortgage deductions. However, Republicans need to do this for both defensive and offensive reasons. To quote:
Tax reform "-----is a path to a bold and rejuvenated message on taxes--one that links simplicity and lower rates to economic revival. Done right, it's a GOP response to Mr. Obama' 'fairness' line, allowing the party to stand with the millions of average Americans who can't afford tax lawyers or lobbyists to carve out shelters. It's a means for the GOP to make a growth argument that clicks. Tax cuts and new jobs aside, tax reform is a path to higher wages and more money for the weekly budget, the college fund and the retirement account."
In conclusion, if we continue on our current path of more acrimony, more misrepresentations and more gridlock, we will continue to get the same results: more debt and more crises leading to ultimate failure. The time for real solutions is now and tax reform is a good place to start. It will provide both sides the opportunity to put politics aside and show some statesmanship. Kicking the can further down the road is irresponsible and dangerous.
Now we know what his leadership does not encompass. In particular, he has not been honest and transparent about our very real problems, especially that of the unrelenting rise of a dangerous and crushing debt.
In this week-end's edition of the Wall Street Journal ("Notable & Quotable"), Sen. Tom Coburn (R., Okla.) is quoted from a letter that he sent to the White House Office of Management and Budget on Feb. 26. It reads as follows:
"The administration is warning sequestration may force the laying off or furloughing of air traffic controllers, border patrol officers, food inspectors, Transportation Security Administration screeners or civilians supporting our men and women in combat in Afghanistan. I would suggest the better approach is to consolidate duplicative positions with overlapping responsibilities and nearly identical jobs."
"In just the past two years, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) has identified more than 1,362 duplicative programs accounting for at least $364.5 billion in federal spending every single year...."
"During a time of budget cuts, it is irresponsible to pay two or more people to do the same job, while laying off other employees in essential positions performing critical duties."
In an article titled "Obama Is Playing a New Game"in the same edition of the Journal, Peggy Noonan states in part:
"Past presidents, certainly since Ronald Reagan, went over the heads of the media to win the people, to get them to contact Congress and push Congress to deal. Fine, and fair enough. But Mr. Obama goes to the people to get them to enhance his position by hating Republicans. He's playing only to the polls, not to Congress, not to get the other side to the bargaining table. He doesn't even like the bargaining table. He doesn't like bargaining."
There have been numerous and substantial ideas on how to fix our fiscal problems. Among them are cuts in spending, elimination of unnecessary and duplicative programs, a balanced budget amendment, changes to entitlement programs and tax reform.
In an article in Friday's (Mar. 1, 2013) titled "The GOP Takes Back Tax Reform", Kimberley Strassel states that the Republicans are ready to make tax reform their "signature issue". She points out that there are many pitfalls in this effort and tough votes ahead for such topics as tax breaks for business and for charitable and mortgage deductions. However, Republicans need to do this for both defensive and offensive reasons. To quote:
Tax reform "-----is a path to a bold and rejuvenated message on taxes--one that links simplicity and lower rates to economic revival. Done right, it's a GOP response to Mr. Obama' 'fairness' line, allowing the party to stand with the millions of average Americans who can't afford tax lawyers or lobbyists to carve out shelters. It's a means for the GOP to make a growth argument that clicks. Tax cuts and new jobs aside, tax reform is a path to higher wages and more money for the weekly budget, the college fund and the retirement account."
In conclusion, if we continue on our current path of more acrimony, more misrepresentations and more gridlock, we will continue to get the same results: more debt and more crises leading to ultimate failure. The time for real solutions is now and tax reform is a good place to start. It will provide both sides the opportunity to put politics aside and show some statesmanship. Kicking the can further down the road is irresponsible and dangerous.
No arguing anything you have stated Norm, right-on! I did some research today and found, from the Congressional Budget Office the following:
ReplyDeleteComparing the average spending for the last four years of the Bush presidency vs. the first four years of Obama's leadership, spending increased from $10.59Trillion dollars to $14.12Trillion. An increase of 33%
For year 2013 (projected) the CBO charts show spending for 2013 will be even higher than 2012 and 30% higher than the spending in 2008. Yet the 2.4% cut ($85B) in what we have come to know as "the sequester"....Obama calls this stupid. Well of course it's stupid, it was "his" idea! Sorry, I couldn't help it. So President Obama and the democrits cannot find a way to cut 2.4% of spending though they added 33% more spending in just four years? Come on folks, reducing spending 2.4% from the CBO projection of $3.55 Trillion equates to $3.46 Trillion in spending. For 2008, spending was $2.73 Trillion dollars......The employment statistics, I found on the Bureau of Labor web-site, are even worse. We may enact change only through the people representing us in Washington D.C. How may we enact change when facts and truth are not presented to the American people? Spending has increased and taxes have gone up as well, but what is the media and this President and his party telling the American people?
Want the truth about jobs in the USA? The average unemployment percentage of eligible workers, by BLS definition, for the last four "Bush" years (2005-2008) was 5.19%. 2009-2012 the average was 8.98%. Worse, the eligible workforce ave. during 2005-2008 was 144,390,000 workers while 2009-2012 there were only 140,320,000 people working. Plus, during that same timeframe, we (the USA) added almost 10,000,000 more people to the "eligible workforce" (age 16+).
As Norm says, we cannot continue with "gridlock" and yet how may "we" change the direction of the Senate (dem majority) and White House? Obama has the media "in his pocket" and goes on a multi-city tour bashing republicans and at the very last minute, yet again, calls on republicans to compromise. When leadership (Obama-Reid) refuses to act, what good does "theory" do? Solutions have been offered, and ignored or belittled. The make-up of power in Washington must change.
Until such happens, we are doomed to a "hole" which keeps getting deeper. For a leader to have "found" over $700 Billion dollars in wasteful spending in medicare, I am certain "he" could find $85 B dollars worth of wasteful spending among other government spending of which we would never notice. The only way change will come is through "intelligent" democrats and the media recognizing the truth about this Presidency and the direction of the democritic party. Not that the republicans are "that much better", but clearly, the facts would indicate such.....
Norm, I agree that tax reform is needed. But, in a global economy, any changes that force corporations/very wealthy people to pay an appropriate percentage of their income will result in an outflow of business to tax havens. Also, when I say "appropriate percentage", I don't mean to imply that those groups should pay a larger percentage than the rest. The use of creative accountants/tax lawyers results in massive revenue loss for the government. I am fine with businesses having a reduced tax rate if it means more hiring. Businesses locating in a certain area feeds all areas of the economy. If lower tax rates could also free up cash to act more responsibly from an environmental/regulatory perspective, all the better.
ReplyDeleteThe more simple the tax code, the harder it is to get around.
I saw some interesting stats on zerohedge today about the economy:
Dow Jones Industrial Average: Then 14164.5; Now 14164.5
Regular Gas Price: Then $2.75; Now $3.73
GDP Growth: Then +2.5%; Now +1.6%
Americans Unemployed (in Labor Force): Then 6.7 million; Now 13.2 million
Americans On Food Stamps: Then 26.9 million; Now 47.69 million
Size of Fed's Balance Sheet: Then $0.89 trillion; Now $3.01 trillion
US Debt as a Percentage of GDP: Then ~38%; Now 74.2%
US Deficit (LTM): Then $97 billion; Now $975.6 billion
Total US Debt Oustanding: Then $9.008 trillion; Now $16.43 trillion
US Household Debt: Then $13.5 trillion; Now 12.87 trillion
Labor Force Particpation Rate: Then 65.8%; Now 63.6%
Consumer Confidence: Then 99.5; Now 69.6
S&P Rating of the US: Then AAA; Now AA+
VIX: Then 17.5%; Now 14%
10 Year Treasury Yield: Then 4.64%; Now 1.89%
EURUSD: Then 1.4145; Now 1.3050
Gold: Then $748; Now $1583
NYSE Average LTM Volume (per day): Then 1.3 billion shares; Now 545 million shares
I think it is very hard to make a straight comparison between Bush and Obama based solely on spending/deficits/unemployment. What happened in 2008/9 was huge. We can argue if it would have been handled differently under McCain, but it was clear many powerful people on both sides favored bailouts, so we had bailouts.
We will see what transpires, but I feel pretty confident that both sides are heavily invested in various versions of the status quo, so that is what we will get.
I should note that the then and now zerohedge refers to is the previous Dow high of 14K back in 2007.
ReplyDeleteRYAN
ReplyDeleteYou're very good in you analysis and insights. I especially like your comments "The more simple the tax code, the harder it is to get around" and "---both sides are heavily invested in various versions of the status quo, so that is what we will get."
Your comments are excellent arguments for smaller government. A government that has less say in how we live, especially in the economic sector, would reduce the power of politicians to meddle and special interests to influence. How do we get there? I think tax reform is a good place to start and I believe that most of the general public would support it.
That is assuming that the Republicans can get their act together and present a solid proposal for tax reform. Beyond that, maybe the parties would finally act reasonably when the public insists on it (which may not occur until the economic situation becomes more dire as I think it ultimately will.)
I don't know how this will all play out. Perhaps we can find some reason for hope in that the country has faced serious problems before and resolved them. I think we can get through this one but it won't be without some dislocations and adjustments.
As to the current state of the economy (re. the statistics you cited): Despite the stock market, current indicators do not show a fundamentally sound economy. We are barely limping along. I personally think that President Obama blew it early in his first term. His priority should have been the economy and not his social and political agenda. If he had made some key moves to lower tax rates, advanced a realistic energy policy and proposed some adjustments to reign in entitlements. I believe that the economy would now be in far better shape.
It is ironic to me that if the President had been as adroit in handling the economy as he is in politics and speech making, he now would be in a better position to promote his agenda.
Norm, you are correct about the state of the economy. Those stats were meant to show that aside from the stock market, which has been manipulated by the Fed's intervention, things are much worse than before. The level of unemployed or underemployed is very high. Much manipulation goes into those numbers.
ReplyDeleteWhat a great discussion. I would like to make a few points later, when I have more time. The statistics Ryan cites are indicative of a nation in serious trouble. One point which must not be ignored is trade and it's effect on revenue, employment, and consumer spending, as well as many other factors. Think about the fact we have had a negative balance of trade for many years now. Now think about the "health" of German's economy as well as China's. Both nations are #1 and # 2 in the world in trade surpluses. Germany has been "supporting" much of the Euro nations debt issues while China has been funding ours (in part). More later...KD
ReplyDeleteI went on the EIA.GOV web-site and found the price of a gallon of gas (reg.) Jan. of 2009 was $1.788 (Nat. ave.) As of 3-4-13, $3.759....Other than that, I think the zerohedge stats appear correct. I did some research a few years ago regarding the loss of manufacturing jobs, which typically have been high paying middle-class jobs. I found a state research, I think Wisconsin, which showed those who lost manufacturing jobs typically found other employment in the service sector which lowered their pay and benefits. We know General Motors, per their CEO, manufactures 70% of their products outside the USA and G.E. has "exported" over 20,000 USA jobs as well as their X-Ray Headquarters, to China. Can we "tie" these facts with the facts provided by Ryan above?
ReplyDeleteRemember the comments made by then candidate Ross Perot in his description of NAFTA?
"That giant sucking sound of jobs leaving the USA". Today, that sound is heard only for jobs going to China. Ryan's idea of tying tax reductions to increases in domestic employment would lead to trade becoming more fair rather than free. I have been following trade and manufacturing since the late 1970's. Being employed in the auto industry from 1972-1987, and on through today, I have learned much about global trade and it's effects on the USA workforce as well as economy. I am certainly on economic expert yet have to conclude, if federal budget deficits are bad, how can we not say same about trade deficits? What made our countries economic and person wealth grow? Manufacturing and a positive trade balance. If taking an open mind and looking at the stats, provided by Ryan, one may make a solid connection between the state of our economy with trade/jobs. I end with this: my friend still is employed at a G.M. plant in Ohio. The employees recently received a nice sized bonus. His check had a gross amount of $8,700 and after taxes (fed, state,city) his net was $4,600. My friend will make around $80K in wages this year. My point, besides the obvious, note how many such jobs have left the USA (remember G.M.'s 70% production)...and being in the auto industry, for each "auto job" there were created 3.5 directly related jobs and a total of 7 jobs for each auto job. Think about the "trading" of auto jobs for service related jobs. Think income as well as tax revenue.....Just another point to consider....KD
Kenny, you are correct about the shift in middle-class employment. From the corporations perspective, why wouldn't they move manufacturing to China (or any country where they can cut costs)? To combat this, there are two options: the American public needs to stop buying products manufactured elsewhere for cost-cutting reasons, or the government needs to act to restrict trade with those countries. I see only the former as a viable option, especially in the theme of limiting the size and scope of government's influence in our lives. Urban living and supporting local business is a quickly growing trend among young professionals. With the access to information about working conditions for those who manufacture the products we crave, I think the tides will turn if the public is given an alternative. Hopefully, this will alter the trade deficit while also bringing more jobs back to this country. The overarching theme of our discussions is that an informed populace is needed to affect these changes. Too many people are so intellectually lazy that it will take quick a shock to wake them up.
ReplyDeleteAlso, I looked at the oft-cited gas prices. While the price was very low when Obama took office, that was due to the crash in the markets. Only a couple months prior, the prices were higher than they have been during this administration. http://gasbuddy.com/gb_retail_price_chart.aspx. I know we like to tie these problems to a certain administration, but the true problems lies with our commitment to a broken financial system and quantitative easing in place of fundamental change. I think that is true of both major parties at the moment.
ReplyDeleteI am glad to hear the trend of young professionals is supporting local business. Often times we tend to think such prices are higher yet in the end, find out otherwise. My brother works at a huge independent hardware/lumber store. The facility is over 300,000 sq. ft. or three times the size of a Lowe's/Home Depot. When the store was being completed, the plan was to build an 1,800 sq. ft. home in which to "showcase" many of their products. The goal, everything to be made in the USA. While some items were hard to locate, out of this whole house, complete with appliances, etc.....there was one thing they could not locate as being made by a USA manufacturer: the handle pulls on cabinet drawers......As for the gas prices, I was not looking at a graph so I expect Ryan is correct. As for trade: company CEO's must show a profit and sustained growth in order to maintain a healthy outlook for stock holders/investors. This is their job and I do not wish to evolve away from capitalism. That being said, government imposes costs on business via many regulations from labor to the environment. Government also enacts the trade laws and negotiates the agreements. How may we expect a plant in Ohio to compete with a plant in Kyoto? Hence, trade agreements must reflect some sort of "fairness" to USA companies who must compete with foreign companies who are not required such additional costs. Yet may we conclude, USA companies have found, via "free trade" a means of making not only more profit via exporting manufacturing operations while at same time gaining access to the Chinese market? Win/win for business....yet what are the consequences for the labor market in the USA and, a big AND, the lost revenue in taxes? There's an old saying in business, "cash flow solves as well as hides many problems".....The less "cash flow", the more problems are exposed. Now it was one thing, having unfair trade agreements with Japan and with NAFTA, yet it's another thing with a communist country such as China. I think the not so distant future will expose many such problems......Good thoughts Ryan and Norm....KD
DeleteRyan and Ken
ReplyDeleteI am really heartened to see you both using the blog to have a serious discussion on trade. There are several questions/observations that I'd like to relate to you for your comments.
Trade policy is one of those areas that have implications beyond the economy. I read somewhere that Nixon and Kissinger pursued an opening to China because they thought it would be beneficial to both nations in the long run to engage economically. That rationale applies to much of free trade policy. In an interdependent world, nations are more likely to advance and be at peace. But it is not a guarantee.
I am of the opinion that our trade deficits are self inflicted at least in part. For example, when GM, Ford and Chrysler dominated the domestic car market, very generous pay increases and benefits were negotiated with the UAW. When the Japanese companies started selling here, the domestic industry was stuck with uncompetitive labor and legacy costs. They lost market share. Other industries (like steel) had the same experience. Time will tell how and if they ever recover. (In a related observation, I noticed that our trade deficit increased by $6 billion in January mostly due to oil imports--let's get fracking!).
Our tax system is a mess--(nothing new there). But it is especially hard on small business, not only for the direct burdens it imposes on them but also because it gives an undue advantage to large corporations who have the resources to cope with regulatory requirements and to influence the regulation process to their advantage. (Question: is the tax system being used to deliberately undercut competition?) In an ideal world, economic decisions should be based on economic "laws" and tax policy should be neutral in the market place.
Given our free enterprise system and the benefits of competition, shouldn't we embrace free trade? At any given time, some countries may have a competitive advantage such as relatively cheap labor. But such advantage can be transitory. Technology and innovation move on and in time another country's productivity gains the advantage. What I know that doesn't work is protective tariffs such as we tried in the 1920's. That led to trade "wars" and was a leading cause of the world wide depression.
We have heard of the horrific factory conditions in countries such as India, Bangladesh, China and other countries. We can respond to these conditions through our trade agreements, public pressure and commercial dealings. But we should remember that in the early stages of the industrial revolution in this country and others, factory conditions were pretty tough. They were remedied by law, labor union activities and the increase in the standard of living in a growing economy.
I would like to "Buy American" in all that I purchase. But that is not realistic. For example, I bought American cars (with a few exceptions) until ten years ago. The Toyota that I drive now is probably the best car I ever owned not only for price but for its quality and dependability.
Looking forward to your comments.
Norm
A few points for consideration: when Chrysler came out with the "K-car", this car sold for approx. $5,500 in the USA. Importing this same car to Japan and the price to the consumer in Japan was $15,000. Free trade? Free for Japan! I often wonder how Germany is the #2 exporting country in the world and yet their wage and benefits are better than those negotiated by the UAW. When the USA or Europe, for example, imposes regulatory costs on their businesses to reduce carbon emissions (global warming) shouldn't the import laws reflect such on foreign produced goods? Ex. remember Kyoto had the shut down manufacturing a month ahead of the olympics for the air to be clean and remember, "global warming". As for quality of manufactured goods and the "Detroit" reputation along with UAW imposed "restrictions". Quality is determined by management. Going from working 9 years at Chrysler to working at V.W. for 6.5 years, I can say via my experience, the quality control was much better at VW than at Chrysler. That being said, we know Toyota, Mercedes Benz, BMW......all have plants in the USA and today, I expect these plants products are of equal quality to that of those made overseas. Without doing research today, having researched in the past, I recall USA management/executive pay differential between their workforce, was much higher than the differential for Japanese and German companies. So while it's very easy to "throw stones" at the unions, management must bear much of the blame though they seldom do.....So getting past that, allow me to note the UAW agreed to a two-tiered wage system. As such, production workers, for example, may be hired for half the wages and no benefits vs. seniority employees. Remember all those employee buy-outs? Get rid of the high costs of seniority employees and replace them with low wage no benefit workers. Is this good for our country both economically as well as quality of living? In order to "compete" with "3rd world" countries, we go "backward" to their level of pay and benefits? I am reminded, growing up in Akron, Ohio, once the Rubber Capital of the World, everytime the United Rubber workers negotiated a new contract with increased wages, after ratification all the salary employees received increases in pay and benefits and the area businesses raised prices for their products and increased their wages and benefits too.....How can the USA compete with "free" trade and "3rd world" wages, regulations, etc? I ask as the most common campaign promise we have heard for years has been: "I will create millions of new high paying jobs".....where are they? As we bemoan the record numbers of people receiving food stamps and number of poor people growing, where are these folks coming from? Dare I surmise many once were middle-calls wage earners?
ReplyDeleteI recall a conversation between Henry Ford and then UAW president Walter Reuther; the two men were walking together by the plant assembly line and Ford stopped and pointed around and said: "one day, those men will all be replaced by machinery"....to which Reuther replied: "who then, will buy your cars"?
I keep this thought and continue to the high number of college grads who cannot find jobs. From accountants to many types of engineers, for example, manufacturing plants need such high trained labor.....but if all the plants are overseas? Have you heard about the shortage of skilled trades here in the USA? From welders to tool and diemakers why the shortage? For years those jobs went the way of exportation via free trade agreements. Why, for example, would GM need these trades when they are paying them to leave the company? So apprenticeship programs were not needed. So there are some things to think about. Free trade vs. fair trade......Maybe we need to examine what the German's are doing?
Wow...you all are providing me with so much food for thought....it is another sign of the unbelievable complexity of our world today! Just a note re the lack of people to fill certain jobs today. So many of these jobs revolve around technology ie.computerization. This society has pushed so many young people to straight liberal arts college programs that now we are seriously behind the eight-ball. As Ryan says about the populace these jobs also require work and too many are just plain lazy waiting for money to fall from the proverbial tree. Such are the effects of a government trying to provide everything for its citizens.
ReplyDeleteThose are some of my thoughts...I am working to mentally digest all of yours. Thanks for the brain fodder!
I forwarded an e-mail to Norm (an article from NPR) regarding un-employment and recessions. Maybe he will share? I replied to the NPR on-line discussion and then viewed another e-mail showing old gas station photo's. The good ole' days when attendants washed the windshield, checked the oil and air in tires and gas was 26 cents a gallon. I think about those days when "grandpa" and "dad" would work in the factory, earn a decent wage, have a pension and health care paid for by the company as part of their compensation package.....and the USA was a trade export surplus country. Today, what a difference. Even in the UAW shops, pay is not equal anymore. Pensions, for the most part (except gov. workers) are a thing of the past. 401 matching contributions by companies have become less and less and even SSI and medicare are in danger of running out of money. Employees contribute toward their H.C. insurance plan (if the company has one)....So one should wonder how globalization has affected the USA "workforce" in both jobs as well as total compensation? Look at the balance of trade and the federal debt as well. Also think about tax revenue which was collected by cities, counties, and states. Note Detroit, once the auto capital of the world. Without all the tax revenue.....well, I suppose you have seen the pictures and read the stories. So maybe the question should evolve to a discussion re: the record highs of the stock market vs. the situation of the middle-class working people of America. Former GM CEO Roger Smith once said: as GM goes, so goes the country....and of course, a short four years ago we bailed out GM, they then turn around two years later and record an all-time record profit, and current CEO Ackerman states 70% of GM production is done outside the USA.....chew on that awhile....
ReplyDeleteKen
ReplyDeleteYou present your arguments very convincingly. I agree with some of your points but not all. In cases where competition between nations is not "fair", I agree we should strive to level the playing field through public pressure and changes in trade agreements and commercial contracts.
In many cases where labor conditions are not humane. I think it is in part due to the stage of development (remember where we were at the beginning of our economic development) and authoritarian governments. Part of our reasons for our opening to China was to get it on the road to modernity. Obviously they aren't there yet but the goal of an interdependent and more peaceful world is a worthy one. And ultimately, it will provide for better living conditions for many who formerly lived in abject poverty.
I think that you are too pessimistic about our ability to compete. Some foreign auto manufacturers must think that we are given the new plants that they are building in the Southeast. And look at the computer industry where our innovation and expertise has made us leaders.
I believe that our biggest problem right now is our own government. If only they would abide by the principles of free enterprise and get out of the way, we would be in much better shape but that is a story we have been over many times.
Dear Norm, I was "painting" with a very broad brush. Speaking to labor conditions, these stages of development, which I agree with your point, must be addressed and what better way than via trade agreements? This really puts the pressure on. I agree our biggest problem is our government. USA productivity is among if not the highest in the world. I just believe while it's hard to find goods made in America, all those manufacturing jobs used to be held by Americans. Take care, KD
ReplyDelete