One of my FB friends linked to the following. BI Before EPA Photos To which my first comment was:
Of course my Liberal friends do think the sky is falling and were resistant to considering some complicating factors and questions. Here is a taste of the discussion:
Here is an important exchange that I want to emphasize:
"So turning back Obama regs is going to take us back to 1970? Do you distrust the State regulators and modern businesses that little? On the upside maybe the wealth gap will lessen back to 1970 levels..."It just frustrates me to no end when people on both side make mountains out of mole hills, and try to use fear to get people to support their view. In this case Trump is backing out some Obama era regulations and we are showing pictures of 1970 as if they are relevant...
Of course my Liberal friends do think the sky is falling and were resistant to considering some complicating factors and questions. Here is a taste of the discussion:
- If 1970 was bad and 2000 was much better, exactly how far do we take this environmental protection and regulatory burden effort? Are the 2000 regs that bad? I don't know of anyone who wants to go back to 1970.
- How has the regulatory burden contributed to loss of higher paying manufacturing, mining and other jobs in the USA? Income inequality? Those jobs that supported low academic /lower skill families before they were stuck working for Starbucks, Kohls, etc...
- If we continue to make it harder and more expensive for domestic and foreign firms to operate in the USA. (ie more regs, higher taxes, more mandated benefits, etc) Will the American consumer stop buying high foreign content products and services in order to support our American companies and workers? Even if the cost to them is more? Value less? (see below)
- Please remember that investors like myself and everyone with IRAs, 401Ks, pensions, etc make money no matter where the product is made and no matter who the customers choose to support. This is because most diversified portfolios include international investments and US companies who do business globally. The only people who suffer when American consumers buy low domestic content products and services are the US workers and the US Tax Revenues.
"I don’t buy based on the lowest cost, there are stores I will not go to and products I will not buy even though they may be the lowest priced. I am not alone in that philosophy either. Just because you operate that way does not mean everyone does" FB1Often people equate buying foreign to "buying cheap" and that is not quite correct. The reality is that many things we purchase are priced by what the market will pay. So if a foreign firm:
"Very few people do buy "lowest cost"... They buy "best value" to maximize their personal benefit. Instead of paying more to support American workers, people rationalize that they deserve better quality, better features, better performance, lower cost, etc." G2A
- can build a good product for a lower cost
- sell it in the USA at a higher USA price
- they can use those additional profits to invest in more R&D, feature development, performance improvement, quality improvement, etc
- and in time their product and market share eclipse the domestic product and domestic companies/ manufacturers go bankrupt.
In summary: if we want better US jobs for more people, we need to minimize regulatory burdens, taxes, etc to what is an optimal trade off point. And to do this we also need to get all healthy Americans to be smart, skilled, and independent.
Related Links
9 comments:
Something to understand about business is that it doesn't care about politics. It cares about the bottom line. I don't see anything wrong with that, actually. Management works for it's board and the board works for it's stockholders. Nobody in business works for taxpayers or voters.
We saw this recently with the NFL. Team owners were perfectly fine with player demonstrates until the other day. What changed their minds? Has there been an enormous amount of progress in recent weeks on the issues that concerned the demonstrating players? No, what happened was a near collapse in TV ratings and attendance at games. What the team owners were looking were devastating losses in their NFL investment. If the trend continued, billion dollar teams would have been bankrupt within a year or two. Only when faced by that prospect did the NFL cave in to the demands of Donald Trump.
There is a lesson to learned here. Capitalism, like automatic weapons, is a tool. It can hurt you, it can help you, but it never, never, cares about you.
--Hiram
I agree whole heartedly, as long as you are willing to admit that the same concept applies to the majority of American consumers.
They are happy to talk big about Unions, American Employees, Buy Americans, Raise Taxes, Regulate more, Raise wages, etc until they go to make their buying decision.
Then they say which of these products and/or services maximize personal value I gain in the transaction.
Be it lower cost, better quality, better performance, more features, etc.
Here is relevant link from one of my Conservative FB acquaintances.
Heritage Climate Plan Failure
I agree whole heartedly, as long as you are willing to admit that the same concept applies to the majority of American consumers.
As a consumer, I like to think I am my own friend.
--Hiram
And most of those friends don't care about politics when they make their spending choices, they mostly cares about their personal value gained and they certainly do not work for the taxpayers or voters.
And most of those friends don't care about politics when they make their spending choices
And that's not a bad thing. I don't do that either. But that doesn't mean I don't care about politics.
--Hiram
It's like the argument that I often hear to the effect that if you think taxes should be higher, why don't you donate money to the government? And the pretty obvious answer is that the argument confuses policy with application of policy. I may disagree with the rules, but once in place I follow them.
I have my views on trade or labor policy, but they don't and they shouldn't affect the decisions I make at the store.
--Hiram
Ah... However if you think American Union personnel should be supported and highly compensated.
Shouldn't you buy the product made by those employees in non right to work states?
Or is it ok to preach one thing and do another.
However if you think American Union personnel should be supported and highly compensated.
What I think is that Americans should compete on an equal basis with others, actually. But I don't shop on that basis. I also claim tax deductions.
--Hiram
Post a Comment