Do the democrats have a chance in 2004?

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2003-09-09 12:49pm

SirNitram wrote:Which is why the phrase is 'stopgap measure', not cure. Protectivism will give the economy a few more years, which, given the economy I'm looking at, is needed.

During which the companies do nothing. That's what's happened when protective tariffs get put in place, they have a way of becoming permanent. Look at the example of the US steel industry last time the protectionism debate came up.

The economy is recovering on it's own. We don't need stop gap measures that do long term damage; we need a solid economic base.

theski · Post by **theski** » 2003-09-09 12:53pm

Nitram wrote:

Which is why the phrase is 'stopgap measure', not cure. Protectivism will give the economy a few more years, which, given the economy I'm looking at, is needed.

Storm beat me to it... The economy is recovering and once you put those tarrifs and protectivism in place.. It is very hard to wean Biz off of it..

Gil Hamilton · Post by **Gil Hamilton** » 2003-09-09 01:12pm

Stormbringer wrote:But damn few people are going to buy stuff that's more expensive simply for a made in the US tag. Economic proctectionism isn't going to do the US consumer any good nor is it going to do US business any good. Competing directly with third world industry is a bad idea, we'll never be able to do it and we'll ruin our economy in the process.

No, they'll buy them for their better quality. American products tend to be of much higher quality than sweat shop products. For instance, my work boots are made 100% in the USA, and I don't mean a Korean factory that is technically US soil. They are about 20 bucks more costly, but I'm going to have them for years without needed to replace anything on them, because while they were more expensive to make, they were also very very well made. The same cannot be said for some slave labor boot made by a 15 year old slave in Thailand.

theski · Post by **theski** » 2003-09-09 01:14pm

I hate to disagree with that .. but most consumers will never look long term and most will always choose the lowest upfront cost....

Iceberg · Post by **Iceberg** » 2003-09-09 01:14pm

Gil Hamilton wrote:No, they'll buy them for their better quality. American products tend to be of much higher quality than sweat shop products. For instance, my work boots are made 100% in the USA, and I don't mean a Korean factory that is technically US soil. They are about 20 bucks more costly, but I'm going to have them for years without needed to replace anything on them, because while they were more expensive to make, they were also very very well made. The same cannot be said for some slave labor boot made by a 15 year old slave in Thailand.

Just out of curiosity - are your boots Red Wings?

Iceberg · Post by **Iceberg** » 2003-09-09 01:15pm

theski wrote:I hate to disagree with that .. but most consumers will never look long term and most will always choose the lowest upfront cost....

Not if you're buying something you expect to get multiple years of use out of. Lowest up-front cost means nothing if you spend many times the price difference over a number of years.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2003-09-09 01:17pm

Iceberg wrote:
theski wrote:I hate to disagree with that .. but most consumers will never look long term and most will always choose the lowest upfront cost....
Not if you're buying something you expect to get multiple years of use out of. Lowest up-front cost means nothing if you spend many times the price difference over a number of years.

That's true. But it's not the case for most US vs Foriegn products. The difference isn't usually that great.

Gil Hamilton · Post by **Gil Hamilton** » 2003-09-09 01:23pm

Iceberg wrote:Just out of curiosity - are your boots Red Wings?

No, they are Wolverines. Best boots I ever wore.

Stravo · Post by **Stravo** » 2003-09-09 01:31pm

Protectionism raises several bad issues:

The industry will have difficulty competing overseas if its products are significantly more expensive than another's (quality issues aside)

The protectinist movement could spark retaliation from other nations that could very easily spiral into a trade war. COnsidering our current deficits its a trade war we are doubtful to win and could end up destroying the very industries we are trying to protect.

We are fighting the inevitable here. Part of the price one pays as the nation becomes more and more affluent is that unskilled labor becomes almost undesirable. Eventually we will have to start upgrading our labor pool.

I wonder how many people proprotectionism were also shrieking madly about the airline industry bailouts calling it corporate welfare. This is labor welfare. What precisely is the difference?

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2003-09-09 01:34pm

Stravo wrote:I wonder how many people proprotectionism were also shrieking madly about the airline industry bailouts calling it corporate welfare. This is labor welfare. What precisely is the difference?

It's all a matter of who makes your campaign contributions.

theski · Post by **theski** » 2003-09-09 01:35pm

And Farm welfare and Steel welfare and such...

Gil Hamilton · Post by **Gil Hamilton** » 2003-09-09 01:36pm

Stormbringer wrote:That's true. But it's not the case for most US vs Foriegn products. The difference isn't usually that great.

I don't know. The phone we had when I was growing up was built right here in Pittsburgh... 40 years ago. It still works nearly perfectly. In fact, the thing could possibly be called the Superman of phones, because the thing is invincible. You can literally throw the thing at a wall and do far more damage to the wall than you would to the phone. The only reason we replaced it was that it was a rotary pulse phone, and many answering machines and directories nowadays won't work with it. Can the same be said about a shitty plastic phone from Japan? I guarantee you that phone built with the same sturdy construction as my old phone but with modern electronics in it that they'd never have to replace for many years would outsell any of those flimsy pieces of crap that you have to buy a new one every year because they made them as cheaply as possible, even if the phone cost a bit more.

Drooling Iguana · Post by **Drooling Iguana** » 2003-09-09 01:45pm

CelesKnight wrote:If you think that he's done nothing but mess up, then you're way, way out of touch with the American electorate--the people who matter in this context.

Then the American electorate is way, way out of touch with reality, which still matters a great deal.

And I refuse to believe that there are thant many people that out of touch with reality, even in the United States. Call me the eternal optimist.

Col. Crackpot · Post by **Col. Crackpot** » 2003-09-09 01:52pm

Iceberg wrote:
theski wrote:I hate to disagree with that .. but most consumers will never look long term and most will always choose the lowest upfront cost....
Not if you're buying something you expect to get multiple years of use out of. Lowest up-front cost means nothing if you spend many times the price difference over a number of years.

try telling that To Curtis Mathis, the last American TV producer. They made the best quality longest lasting televisions and video equipment in the world. their televisions lasted 30 years. That however was reflected in their price. the problem is, especially with technologicaly advanced goods, is that people don't want to keep a tv or dvd player or camcorder for 20 years. why pay $600 for a long lasting brand when you can buy a daiwoo or a changhuang (real brand names by the way) for $100 and it will work fine for five years, and when better technology comes out , in five years you but a new one. over the course of that same 20 years you have 4 televisions, spend less and at the end of the 20 years you have a more advanced product with better performance and more features than you would have if you had stuck with the quality long lasting brand. Thats what killed curtis mathis (and god knows how many others).

theski · Post by **theski** » 2003-09-09 02:03pm

Gil wrote:

I guarantee you that phone built with the same sturdy construction as my old phone but with modern electronics in it that they'd never have to replace for many years would outsell any of those flimsy pieces of crap that you have to buy a new one every year because they made them as cheaply as possible, even if the phone cost a bit more

Nope.. 90%would take the $10 dollar phone nowing it will break in a year over the $100 phone hoping it will last longer.. More expensive does not mean better....

Gil Hamilton · Post by **Gil Hamilton** » 2003-09-09 02:10pm

theski wrote:Nope.. 90%would take the $10 dollar phone nowing it will break in a year over the $100 phone hoping it will last longer.. More expensive does not mean better....

No, higher quality and sturdy construction make it better. And that plastic phone that will break in a year will cost you $60 when it cost around five to make. I'd much rather have a phone that costs a bit more that will last for ten years than a easily breakable piece of crap that will cost me less, but I'll have to replace it in a year. In the long run, I'll have made up the difference. I take that back, I'll probably make up the difference since two cheap-ass phones would probably cost more than one really sturdy one.

theski · Post by **theski** » 2003-09-09 02:14pm

But Gil.... You are playing the ODDS the more expensive one will last longer....

Gil Hamilton · Post by **Gil Hamilton** » 2003-09-09 02:17pm

theski wrote:But Gil.... You are playing the ODDS the more expensive one will last longer....

No I'm not. The original phone we have was so sturdy that it's 40 years old and still works great. Find me a cheap plastic phone down at Target that will work after 40 years of use and we'll talk.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2003-09-09 02:20pm

Gil, so that's how you do it, fine. But the average consumer isn't you and goes for cheaper products even if the cost works out the same in the end. It's how people shop that matters.

Protectionism isn't going to bring about a better product. It'll just let companies continue on with unsound business practices until we don't have an economy. What we need to do is lead the competition, not try to compete with asian sweat shops directly.

Gil Hamilton · Post by **Gil Hamilton** » 2003-09-09 02:27pm

Stormbringer wrote:Gil, so that's how you do it, fine. But the average consumer isn't you and goes for cheaper products even if the cost works out the same in the end. It's how people shop that matters.

But it won't work out the same in the end. I was just down at Target, you guessed it, buying a new phone two days ago, because yet cheap piece of crap phone pooped out on me. The average cost of a phone down there is about 60 some dollars. After a 10 year period, if you are buying a 60 dollar phone every year, you are paying 600 dollars. If you buy a sturdy phone that costs 100 dollars and it lasts you the entire 100 years... well, you do that math.

Protectionism isn't going to bring about a better product. It'll just let companies continue on with unsound business practices until we don't have an economy. What we need to do is lead the competition, not try to compete with asian sweat shops directly.

Then the problem is with the companies, isn't it?

Gil Hamilton · Post by **Gil Hamilton** » 2003-09-09 02:28pm

That should read "the entire 10 years" by the way.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2003-09-09 02:30pm

But it won't work out the same in the end. I was just down at Target, you guessed it, buying a new phone two days ago, because yet cheap piece of crap phone pooped out on me. The average cost of a phone down there is about 60 some dollars. After a 10 year period, if you are buying a 60 dollar phone every year, you are paying 600 dollars. If you buy a sturdy phone that costs 100 dollars and it lasts you the entire 100 years... well, you do that math.

Depends, sounds like you just bought overpriced crap. I bought a cordless phone for ten bucks and it's worked fine for five years now. Simply buying expensive things doesn't mean they're any better.

Then the problem is with the companies, isn't it?

They've got to be given an incentive to change. It's called competition. Proctectionism removes that and there in is the problem.

theski · Post by **theski** » 2003-09-09 02:32pm

Gil Wrote

But it won't work out the same in the end. I was just down at Target, you guessed it, buying a new phone two days ago, because yet cheap piece of crap phone pooped out on me. The average cost of a phone down there is about 60 some dollars. After a 10 year period, if you are buying a 60 dollar phone every year, you are paying 600 dollars. If you buy a sturdy phone that costs 100 dollars and it lasts you the entire 100 years... well, you do that math

Not every $100 phone will last and not every $10 phone will die in a year.. and that is the problem.. Playing the ODDS>>> You roll the dice and take your chances with every product you buy

Axis Kast · Post by **Axis Kast** » 2003-09-09 03:28pm

Bush has already won by virtue of (A) his unquestioned incumbence, (B) the stereotypes of the Republican Party, and (C) the "Terror psyche" now ingrained in most Americans.

The bottom line? People like Dean don't make us feel safe. Period. Even at his worst - lampooned as a gun-toting, bible-thumping Texan cowboy -, Bush still walks away looking far more the "fighter" than any Democratic competitor. He's managed to revive the Reaganistic spirit: a Republican administration is a defense/security-savvy administration.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-09-09 03:31pm

Damn, I miss another protectionism debate. Fucking classes.

StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Do the democrats have a chance in 2004?

Re: Do the democrats have a chance in 2004?