3 ms·
If the US does resort to protectionism, it would put at stake the massive revenues that american companies are getting from foreign markets. For many of the top
by kls 16y ago
If the US does resort to protectionism, it would put at stake the massive revenues that american companies are getting from foreign markets. For many of the top American companies, the foreign markets are the fastest growing markets and in many, they have started being more than 50% of revenues.
I don't understand how one comes to this conclusion. One only needs to look to our debt to China on federal bonds to see that the revenue is not flowing inward rather it is flowing outward. The fortune 500 mentioned do not "bring that money home" because they are now multi-national corporations that have no loyalty to "home" because they don't have one. Home for the moment is the best tax haven.
Simply put what Andy is proposing is that if you profess to be an American corp than act like it.
There is nothing wrong with muti-national corps. But we should be rewarding the American ones that take care of Americas not because of nationalistic pride but rather because like it or not, we are in the boat together and for better or worse at a certain level your interest are my interest. We should be rewarding the ones that row the boat together at every level. Naturaly when you go upward we are in the boat together with all humanity but you have to protect the small boats from the wake of the big ones because sinking one to float another does nothing to bring everyone up.
So at that level, I am all for my boat that my forefathers floated and that I worked all my life to float not be submerged to float someone else boat. It is not fair, we should be lifting everyone up but not at the expense of others.
I am all for rewarding companies that pay homage to the boat that floated them and allowed them to set sail to new waters. We can lift others up without dragging ourselves down. But it starts with sane limits. Something the "haves" call protectionism. "Greed is good" has failed, it has dragged us to hell in a hand basket.
Do you think we are better off now than we where in the 50's when a single income could provide a better standard of living that most make today with two incomes and government assistance.
We look a lot like the USSR right before the wall came down. Massive state assistance, huge social programs, job growth coming from the state sector and a broken manufacturing base. We really pissed it away.
- skowmunk 16y agoSo I guess you woudldn't agree with any of these: 1) Increase in stock prices by getting good growth and profits (irrespective of where those come from) is generally a better wealth creator than distribution of those profits 2) companies desperately need to hold on to profits, as it is ammunition in a war of survival, whether its by parking in tax havens or some other way, so that they can deploy it when and where required to continue their survival 3) its more important for companies to have the ability to survive and provide employment to people in the long run than to distribute profits for making people happy in the short term
- kls 16y agoNo I don't agree with any of them, it was not money hording massive organizations that built the engine of ingenuity that made America what it was. It was the upstarts, the scrappy guys in their garage, The Wright brother on a hill, United did not build the airline industry the guys that dared to dream did. Those are the people that create true wealth. The carpetbaggers come later and try to convince you that their money hoarding (off another persons idea) is good for you. It is not, I don't understand why people allow their mind to be contorted by the "studied" on this subject. Those at the top have a vested interest in perpetuating these theories in economics. I am a die hard capitalist so long as it advances the human race, but what we have is insane. It does nothing to reward human progress. This is slash and burn capitalism. #1 is a fiat. #2 is horrible as the capital is not being used. #3 is a fallacy, companies do not have to survive for individual survival. This thinking is what props up dead companies for years after their usefulness has waned. It is also what corporate leaders use as scare tactics to extort bail out funds. Capital will always divert to successful companies who then ramp up production. What we have now is the elimination of the butcher, baker and candlestick maker due to walking dead monolithic companies. If those where allowed to rightfully die you would see the return of the butcher, baker, and candlestick maker (metaphorically), as people stopped looking to corporations to be their new Mamas.