One of the problems with being forced to be more reliant on mass transportation is that the government can shut it down whenever they want and restrict the movements of the population as is now happening in Communist China. This is in an effort to curtail protests happening within the country over the extreme COVID lockdown measures which lead to the burning deaths of ten people on November 25 who were locked in a burning apartment building.
Showing posts with label China. Show all posts
Showing posts with label China. Show all posts
Tuesday, November 29, 2022
Thursday, August 18, 2022
China Needs a Gorbachev
If it weren't for the Capitalism in China, the people of the world's most populous country would still be poor and living in early twentieth century conditions. But Capitalism isn't married to Communism, it is controlled by it and tolerated by it because the CCP understands that if it is to have the power it needs to subjugate its people and threaten its neighbors, then it needs money. It learned well from the U.S.S.R.'s failure and its own early failures. Capitalism is a means to an end for the CCP.
Just imagine if Communism and dictatorial control wasn't a constant choke on the economy and people. The next five-year plan should be to give the government to the people of China.
Friday, January 16, 2015
Gas Cheap Now, But Not for Long
![]() |
| Filling up at the pump is less painful than in the recent past. |
So why are prices as low as they are? It's because of the extra oil on the market from U.S. oil production which has seen a boom in recent years, due in part to hydraulic fracturing and increased oil drilling on private lands.
But my point with this post is not to talk about why there is so much oil, or the benefits of fracking. There are many articles and blog posts addressing these issues. The point of this particular post is to throw a wet blanket on this low-price enthusiasm.
The price won't be low for long. And the past would be the indicator of future performance.
In 2009, the price of gasoline dropped below $2.00 a gallon for a brief time and then continuously rose back up to $3.50 to $4.00 a gallon for Regular in New Jersey. The chart below shows the price per barrel which the price per gallon of gasoline follows in its movements.
![]() |
| From Infomine.com |
The message? Get it while it's hot, because very soon it's going to shoot back up to $3.50 per gallon and probably higher.
What are the causes of oil price movement? Supply, demand, political unrest and government regulation. Right now supply is greater than demand, so the price is lower. But there are so many political hotspots in the world today that any one of these tipping points that tips could cause oil futures to shoot back up to $120 per barrel.
As examples, Russia's designs on Ukraine and its trouble-making around the world have the potential for causing oil prices to rise, and this is a country that wants oil prices to rise back up because so much of their economy and budgetary income is based on the sale of oil and natural gas. So for Russia, instability on the world stage which causes higher fuel prices is exactly what they want and need.
Daesh or ISIS, is militant Islam rampaging through the Middle East and threatening terror everywhere else. They are currently in control of half of Syria and much of Iraq. It won't take much for that particular march of evil to cause an oil price spike. If they were to succeed in taking over Syria or Iraq, or cause mayhem in Saudi Arabia, Jordan or Israel, these are just some scenarios that would be catalysts for crisis leading to an oil price rise.
Al Qaeda, the original Islamic terrorist group is still a very real threat and actively trying to bring terror killings to the next horrific level. There is no restraint as to the kind of murder and destruction that they would like to perform and if they had a weapon of mass destruction they would have no hesitation in using it, as we have seen on 9/11 and in other events. Hamas and Hezbollah are the more localized but just as dangerous militant Islamists of the Middle East. Any of these groups could and would bring economic chaos that could result in sky-high oil prices.
Iran is a country that wants to see Israel and America (the great Satan) destroyed. It is progressing in its efforts to become a nuclear power with Russia's and North Korea's help. It could very soon succeed in its efforts to make a nuclear weapon. If that happens Israel may bomb Iran's nuclear facilities causing a regional war. This would spike oil prices.
The Taliban is still killing people in Afghanistan and Pakistan and seems intent on continuing to cause death and destabilization, also through the spread of terror.
The Communist-led, police-state of China always takes the side of the bad actors on the world stage as shown by its support of Iran, Venezuela, Cuba, North Korea, and Russia. And it is intent on destabilizing Taiwan, threatening the U.S. and Japan, and throwing its weight around the region and the world. And China never seems to lend its growing military might to world security threats that other civilized countries fight against. Their belligerent actions could be the cause of any number of scenarios that could cause an oil price spike.
Even if it isn't a national political action that causes the problem, it could be a crucial break in the supply chain, perhaps a few oil refineries going down, a natural disaster or a massive oil spill like the one in the Gulf of Mexico a few years ago. The anti-hydraulic fracturing movement could also put a political chokehold on oil derived from this process especially if countries regulate against the process as many individual states in the U.S. have done.
So, sorry to be a stick-in-the-mud, but enjoy the lower cost of gas for your car and fill up your fuel oil tank now because inevitably the low price we see now will soon disappear to be replaced again by the signs we are so used to.
Labels:
Afghanistan,
al Qaida,
China,
Daesh,
economy,
energy,
gas prices,
Hamas,
Hezbolla,
Iran,
ISIS,
Islamic extremists,
North Korea,
oil,
Pakistan,
politics,
Russia,
September 11,
Taliban,
Ukraine
Wednesday, January 25, 2012
President Obama's State of the Union Address - The Egg McMuffin of Speeches
The political stump is where you can hear the real, unadulterated words of President Obama. You hear sound bites of them every day in the news. In the speeches that he gives when traveling the country while fundraising or pushing a particular issue, the president uses Republican bashing, wealth bashing, petulant, blame-everyone-but-himself, fudge-the-numbers, fudge-the-reality language and comes across as little more than a left-wing ideologue.
And then there's last night's State of the Union address. In the televised address to both houses of Congress, President Obama came across as someone who might be willing to cross the aisle to work with the other political party. He and his speechwriters tried to sound more moderate, more reasonable, and more pliable. He spoke well of America and its flag, he spoke well of the military and their successes against bin Laden and in Afghanistan and Iraq. He spoke of liberty and tyranny (!) and of intolerance for Iran's nuclear ambitions. He also spoke almost conservatively when speaking of unfair trade and piracy from countries like China.
Appreciative and appreciated words.
But the president and his speechwriters are liberals and a liberal message can't help but pervade even this attempt at an aisle-crossing speech. He went on to say in the State of the Union address that our relationship with Israel is stronger. It is clearly not. His actions have distanced us from Israel and increased the threat against them from multiple enemies in the region. Egypt, Libya, the Palestinians, Hamas, Syria, Turkey, and Iran are all greater threats to Israel than ever. He said our ties with Europe and Asia are stronger. They are not. He said our ties with South and Central America are stronger. This is true, if the government is left-leaning, or socialist. It is not true of more democratic, or conservative states like Honduras or Colombia.
He said in his speech that our military will be stronger in the years to come, but 500 billion dollars in cuts, a smaller fighting force, and the smallest navy since 1947 counter this statement. All of this in the face of increasing threats around the world. Everything Barack Obama has done since entering office has been aimed at reducing the military's strength (not too mention increasing the size of the budget, and the debt).
In his State of the Union speech, the president (a Democrat) said that he believes what Republican Abraham Lincoln believed: That government should do for the people only what they cannot do better by themselves, and no more. However, his actions for the last three years show just the opposite. He wants government doing any and every thing that people could do better for themselves.
This president once again called for immigration reform so that illegal immigrants can enjoy the benefits of American citizens and not have the worry of being deported hanging over their heads. :`-( I ask again, what kind of country do we live in where our leader wants to sanction the illegal actions of millions of people? Against the will of the majority.
The 44th president also called (yet again) for a tax increase on millionaires. Nothing new there. He and his speech writers know what works with his base, I guess.
He continued on to say that he wants to develop more energy in the U.S. from all sources of energy and even suggested opening up more public lands to drilling. This would be great if it were true, but he has turned down the Keystone XL Pipeline from Canada which would have greatly helped reduce oil imports from the Middle East and has continuously been a thorn in the sides of oil companies that want to drill in the Gulf of Mexico or off the coasts. And despite his failed backing of solar energy company, Solyndra, he wants to double down on that type of investment.
My suggestion to those who listened to President Obama's 2012 State of the Union address (hopefully his last)--Forget everything you've heard, because it's the stump speeches where the truth (and more lies) comes out to play. As Rush Limbaugh likes to say, this is nothing more than a State of the Union Show.
Get a free download of State of the Union addresses. State of the Union Address (1790-2001)
Egg McMuffin is a registered trademark of McDonalds Corporation.
And then there's last night's State of the Union address. In the televised address to both houses of Congress, President Obama came across as someone who might be willing to cross the aisle to work with the other political party. He and his speechwriters tried to sound more moderate, more reasonable, and more pliable. He spoke well of America and its flag, he spoke well of the military and their successes against bin Laden and in Afghanistan and Iraq. He spoke of liberty and tyranny (!) and of intolerance for Iran's nuclear ambitions. He also spoke almost conservatively when speaking of unfair trade and piracy from countries like China.
Appreciative and appreciated words.
But the president and his speechwriters are liberals and a liberal message can't help but pervade even this attempt at an aisle-crossing speech. He went on to say in the State of the Union address that our relationship with Israel is stronger. It is clearly not. His actions have distanced us from Israel and increased the threat against them from multiple enemies in the region. Egypt, Libya, the Palestinians, Hamas, Syria, Turkey, and Iran are all greater threats to Israel than ever. He said our ties with Europe and Asia are stronger. They are not. He said our ties with South and Central America are stronger. This is true, if the government is left-leaning, or socialist. It is not true of more democratic, or conservative states like Honduras or Colombia.
He said in his speech that our military will be stronger in the years to come, but 500 billion dollars in cuts, a smaller fighting force, and the smallest navy since 1947 counter this statement. All of this in the face of increasing threats around the world. Everything Barack Obama has done since entering office has been aimed at reducing the military's strength (not too mention increasing the size of the budget, and the debt).
In his State of the Union speech, the president (a Democrat) said that he believes what Republican Abraham Lincoln believed: That government should do for the people only what they cannot do better by themselves, and no more. However, his actions for the last three years show just the opposite. He wants government doing any and every thing that people could do better for themselves.
This president once again called for immigration reform so that illegal immigrants can enjoy the benefits of American citizens and not have the worry of being deported hanging over their heads. :`-( I ask again, what kind of country do we live in where our leader wants to sanction the illegal actions of millions of people? Against the will of the majority.
The 44th president also called (yet again) for a tax increase on millionaires. Nothing new there. He and his speech writers know what works with his base, I guess.
He continued on to say that he wants to develop more energy in the U.S. from all sources of energy and even suggested opening up more public lands to drilling. This would be great if it were true, but he has turned down the Keystone XL Pipeline from Canada which would have greatly helped reduce oil imports from the Middle East and has continuously been a thorn in the sides of oil companies that want to drill in the Gulf of Mexico or off the coasts. And despite his failed backing of solar energy company, Solyndra, he wants to double down on that type of investment.
My suggestion to those who listened to President Obama's 2012 State of the Union address (hopefully his last)--Forget everything you've heard, because it's the stump speeches where the truth (and more lies) comes out to play. As Rush Limbaugh likes to say, this is nothing more than a State of the Union Show.
Get a free download of State of the Union addresses. State of the Union Address (1790-2001)
Egg McMuffin is a registered trademark of McDonalds Corporation.
Labels:
Afghanistan,
China,
Congress,
election,
government,
Hamas,
Iran,
Israel,
liberals,
military,
Obama,
oil,
politics,
Turkey
Friday, October 7, 2011
Everything Is Not Steve Jobs' Fault
Steve Jobs of Apple Computer has been gone just a couple of days now and already the well-deserved kudos he's received for a life of innovation are being marred by undeserved and ugly criticism of his company's manufacturing policies in China. Steve Jobs is not responsible if people who work at his plant in China commit suicide. I am not responsible if I buy an iPhone or a MacBook. The worker who takes his own life is responsible for that decision. Despite the fact that it is a communist country, these people work in modern factories with lots of amenities, not gulags.
So now according to some it's blood diamonds, blood Levis, blood Thinkpads, and blood iPhones? Where does it stop? What is the limit of the buyer's responsibility for worker oppression? Apparently we have to crochet our own TVs and churn our own eggs. I'm not buying it. The consumer in the U.S., Uruguay, Indonesia, New Zealand, and France (and every other consumer country) isn't responsible for every worker in China and vice versa. Of course, companies should do their due diligence. And Apple has, according to some sources. But there is such a thing as personal responsibility. That is something that the Occupy Wall Street crowd doesn't appear to buy into.
The workers in China in 2011 can take responsibility upon themselves and form their own labor unions if they are unhappy with their working conditions. How arrogant and patronizing liberals are to think that the almighty U.S. can wave its omnipotent scepter of guilt and make things better for the plebes "over there". We don't have to form or export unions from the U.S. for the workers in China! They are intelligent and industrious people - ascending in the world to their own credit. And if the Chinese workers looking for the union label run into trouble with their communist Chinese government, they can overthrow it and form a democracy, or reform it to an undiluted communist one if they prefer. Revolution's not easy, but it's been done before. It's up to them to make their labor conditions better, if they are truly bad.
At the very least, the Chinese Foxconn/Apple workers should quit their unpleasant jobs and go home to their families before they consider jumping off the top of the company dormitory to their deaths.
Let's not blame Steve Jobs for all the world's injustices, nor even for this one. Hundreds of thousands of people worldwide wouldn't have jobs but for him and Apple. That is a fact. Is every human endeavor perfectly good or perfectly bad? No. Never has been; never will be. People aren't perfect. Companies aren't perfect. Political systems aren't perfect.
So now according to some it's blood diamonds, blood Levis, blood Thinkpads, and blood iPhones? Where does it stop? What is the limit of the buyer's responsibility for worker oppression? Apparently we have to crochet our own TVs and churn our own eggs. I'm not buying it. The consumer in the U.S., Uruguay, Indonesia, New Zealand, and France (and every other consumer country) isn't responsible for every worker in China and vice versa. Of course, companies should do their due diligence. And Apple has, according to some sources. But there is such a thing as personal responsibility. That is something that the Occupy Wall Street crowd doesn't appear to buy into.
The workers in China in 2011 can take responsibility upon themselves and form their own labor unions if they are unhappy with their working conditions. How arrogant and patronizing liberals are to think that the almighty U.S. can wave its omnipotent scepter of guilt and make things better for the plebes "over there". We don't have to form or export unions from the U.S. for the workers in China! They are intelligent and industrious people - ascending in the world to their own credit. And if the Chinese workers looking for the union label run into trouble with their communist Chinese government, they can overthrow it and form a democracy, or reform it to an undiluted communist one if they prefer. Revolution's not easy, but it's been done before. It's up to them to make their labor conditions better, if they are truly bad.
At the very least, the Chinese Foxconn/Apple workers should quit their unpleasant jobs and go home to their families before they consider jumping off the top of the company dormitory to their deaths.
Let's not blame Steve Jobs for all the world's injustices, nor even for this one. Hundreds of thousands of people worldwide wouldn't have jobs but for him and Apple. That is a fact. Is every human endeavor perfectly good or perfectly bad? No. Never has been; never will be. People aren't perfect. Companies aren't perfect. Political systems aren't perfect.
Labels:
Apple,
Capitalism,
China,
Foxconn,
liberals,
Marx,
Steve Jobs,
union
Wednesday, September 21, 2011
The Things Autocratic Capitalistic Countries Are Doing Right That the United States Is Not
I understand the thinking of President Obama and the others on the political left. I understand the logic behind the Buffett Tax. It is playground bullying times a trillion. If Timmy Turner has more marbles than the other kids on the playground and a bully takes Timmy’s extra marbles to make it fairer to everyone else, that’s the Buffett tax. That’s the death tax and the millionaire tax.
The Buffett rule, or tax, is the Obama administration’s latest nomenclature for the millionaire tax, and is named after Warren Buffett, a wealthy billionaire who is in arrears with the IRS over unpaid taxes, but who thinks people like him should pay more taxes to the U.S. treasury. Makes sense, right? The Obama administration apparently thinks that if a tax is named after a rich man, (thereby giving it the Millionaire Seal of Approval) that Americans will hop on board and agree to increasing the tax burden on all those shiftless wealthy people.
The problem with millionaire taxes (and higher taxes in general) is that they may bring in a little more revenue in the short run, but at the expense of money that would have stayed in the economy generating economic growth and job creation.
Why are citizens who make more money and who already pay more taxes than I do responsible for paying a larger share of their income to support the government? They are not.
It is class envy. It is class warfare. It is playground redistribution. It is neo-Marxism.
I paid roughly $10,000 in taxes to the federal government last year. My neighbor, Bob, made a million dollars last year and paid the federal government roughly $200,000. Twenty times what I paid. Who on Earth can say that my neighbor isn’t paying his fair share? He paid what 20 people making my salary pay in income tax! Good for him!
But that’s not good enough for Progressives, and liberal Democrats like Barack Obama. You see, they want Bob to pay $396,000 on his million dollar earnings. Thirty-nine times what I am paying! Because Bob is successful, they want him to pay what 39 average tax payers pay in taxes. And, they want to take away as many deductions from him as they can so that he has a harder time lowering his tax burden than I do.
I think Bob is paying his fair share. He is paying MORE than his fair share. He is an “engine” in the economy of the community. What would be truly fair, in the spirit of American fairness, would be a flat tax, or a Fair tax that would involve everyone paying SOMETHING to the U.S. treasury, including the 47% of Americans who now pay nothing in federal income tax. Russia has a 13% flat tax that everyone pays and that has been very successful…. Russia!
No one person should have to pay a higher percentage of his or her income than another person to the federal government. Check it: In the small island nation of Singapore, everyone is capped at $2500 of their income, no matter how high their income is. And this is an autocratic government. (However, the country does have many other taxes that the U.S. does not.)
It is fundamentally unfair in a nation that is supposed to be fair, and provide a level playing field to expect Bob to pay a higher percentage of his income to the federal government than I do. That is not fair, it is punishment for being successful. The progressive income tax (where one person pays 0%, another person pays 25% and another pays 39% of their incomes) is government theft from people who have been successful, or lucky in their lives.
Why take away the incentive for Bob to spend his extra dollars on boosting the U.S. economy by buying expensive products and services, which provide jobs, or hiring extra employees for his business?
President Obama, if you want to spur consumer spending, excite the economy, and jump start job growth, you need to cut federal spending. You also need to cut the corporate income tax (which at 40% is among the highest in the world -- even the communist-capitalist-dictatorship Red China has a lower corporate income tax). You also need to make permanent the Bush tax rates, and level the tax burden playing field so that everyone has “skin in the game.”
Perhaps Congress should pass a special tax on all people who think they and others aren’t being taxed enough. I think a 90 percent rate would be fair.
The Buffett rule, or tax, is the Obama administration’s latest nomenclature for the millionaire tax, and is named after Warren Buffett, a wealthy billionaire who is in arrears with the IRS over unpaid taxes, but who thinks people like him should pay more taxes to the U.S. treasury. Makes sense, right? The Obama administration apparently thinks that if a tax is named after a rich man, (thereby giving it the Millionaire Seal of Approval) that Americans will hop on board and agree to increasing the tax burden on all those shiftless wealthy people.
The problem with millionaire taxes (and higher taxes in general) is that they may bring in a little more revenue in the short run, but at the expense of money that would have stayed in the economy generating economic growth and job creation.
Why are citizens who make more money and who already pay more taxes than I do responsible for paying a larger share of their income to support the government? They are not.
It is class envy. It is class warfare. It is playground redistribution. It is neo-Marxism.
I paid roughly $10,000 in taxes to the federal government last year. My neighbor, Bob, made a million dollars last year and paid the federal government roughly $200,000. Twenty times what I paid. Who on Earth can say that my neighbor isn’t paying his fair share? He paid what 20 people making my salary pay in income tax! Good for him!
But that’s not good enough for Progressives, and liberal Democrats like Barack Obama. You see, they want Bob to pay $396,000 on his million dollar earnings. Thirty-nine times what I am paying! Because Bob is successful, they want him to pay what 39 average tax payers pay in taxes. And, they want to take away as many deductions from him as they can so that he has a harder time lowering his tax burden than I do.
I think Bob is paying his fair share. He is paying MORE than his fair share. He is an “engine” in the economy of the community. What would be truly fair, in the spirit of American fairness, would be a flat tax, or a Fair tax that would involve everyone paying SOMETHING to the U.S. treasury, including the 47% of Americans who now pay nothing in federal income tax. Russia has a 13% flat tax that everyone pays and that has been very successful…. Russia!
No one person should have to pay a higher percentage of his or her income than another person to the federal government. Check it: In the small island nation of Singapore, everyone is capped at $2500 of their income, no matter how high their income is. And this is an autocratic government. (However, the country does have many other taxes that the U.S. does not.)
It is fundamentally unfair in a nation that is supposed to be fair, and provide a level playing field to expect Bob to pay a higher percentage of his income to the federal government than I do. That is not fair, it is punishment for being successful. The progressive income tax (where one person pays 0%, another person pays 25% and another pays 39% of their incomes) is government theft from people who have been successful, or lucky in their lives.
Why take away the incentive for Bob to spend his extra dollars on boosting the U.S. economy by buying expensive products and services, which provide jobs, or hiring extra employees for his business?
President Obama, if you want to spur consumer spending, excite the economy, and jump start job growth, you need to cut federal spending. You also need to cut the corporate income tax (which at 40% is among the highest in the world -- even the communist-capitalist-dictatorship Red China has a lower corporate income tax). You also need to make permanent the Bush tax rates, and level the tax burden playing field so that everyone has “skin in the game.”
Perhaps Congress should pass a special tax on all people who think they and others aren’t being taxed enough. I think a 90 percent rate would be fair.
Labels:
budget,
China,
deficit,
Democrats,
economy,
government,
jobs,
liberals,
Obama,
Russia,
taxes,
Warren Buffett
Tuesday, August 16, 2011
U.S. Thinks Pakistan Handed Over Pieces of Secret Helicopter to China
| A Black Hawk Helicopter |
Pakistan
may have allowed a helicopter (used in the raid against Osama bin Laden
) with secret stealth technology to be viewed by the Chinese government, according to the New York Times. And U.S. intelligence officials even believe that the Pakistanis may have allowed the Chinese to take a sample of the downed chopper.
As can be expected, Pakistan denies letting anyone see the helicopter
and China denies any involvement. No surprise there. Pakistan and China are always denying things after sticking it to the U.S.
At the very least, it’s time we stop giving money that we don’t have to Pakistan. The U.S. gives that country billions of dollars a year and what we get is a haven for the Taliban
who operate against and kill our troops from bases in Pakistan. We get Osama living in a compound in Pakistan for at least six years. We get begrudging help in the fight against the Taliban, all from a country that is filled with Islamic extremists that hate the West.
Saturday, April 16, 2011
Donald Trump, "Political" Opportunist
![]() |
| Donald and Melania Trump (by Boss Tweed) |
But my thanks go out to radio talkshow host Mark Levin for opening my eyes to who this guy really is. Mark has been skeptical of Trump since his potential presidential run began. It started with questions about his financial contributions to politicians which were all over the map and seem to actually favor Democrats. Trump sloughed off this criticism as him just being loyal to friends and though he didn't say it, from how it looks it seems as if he is basically greasing the palms of everybody just in case in the future he ever needs to call in a favor from one of these politicians. I'm not saying he is doing this. I'm just saying it looks like that.
Here is the text of some of the recordings of Trump that Levin played on his show on Friday. You can hear them on Mark Levin's website and find them easily on YouTube. Go to the tape: "I'm impressed with Nancy Pelosi...but I'm surprised that she didn't try to have Bush impeached, which personally I think would have been a wonderful thing. He lied. He got us into the war with lies." "I think Obama will lead by consensus." "He's (Obama) done an amazing job." "Bush has been a disaster, he's been terrible...who could be worse?" "Bush has been so bad, so incompetent, so evil, I don't think any (Republican) could have won." And here's the pièce de résistance, something we conservatives say whenever we wake up in the morning, but in this case they are Donald Trump's words, "We must have universal health care."
Wow! What a true-blue conservative. Yep. What? You can't hear me through the dripping wet digital sarcasm that's slogging its sticky way through your broadband Internet connection? Sblorry.
Donald Trump calls himself a conservative, and practically called himself a compassionate conservative (which was George W. Bush's label) the other day on Sean Hannity's television show. But many of Trump's views are downright liberal Democrat views. His venomous position on George W. Bush and the Iraq war is a liberal Democrat position. His view that America needs universal health care is a liberal Democrat position. His previous support for Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi is certainly not a conservative position. And a conservative would not financially support Chuck Schumer, Hillary Clinton, the Democratic National Committee, and the like.
While Donald Trump would be certainly be better to have in the office of President of the United States than Barack Obama, he would not be better than ANY of the other serious, and proven Republicans. He just happens to know how to play the media. His opportunistic "campaign" for president will end by his own hand when he sees the jig is up, when he doesn't need a ratings boost any more, or when skeptical Republicans dismiss him as the "fake, phoney, fraud" that he is.
Labels:
Apprentice,
Carter,
China,
conservatives,
Democrats,
Donald Trump,
economy,
George W. Bush,
healthcare,
Jimmy,
liberals,
Mark Levin,
Nancy Pelosi,
Obama,
OPEC,
politics,
Republicans,
Sean Hannity
Friday, April 1, 2011
If You Want Employment to Rise, Buy American
The headline of this article makes a certain amount of sense, don’t you think? More on common sense in a moment. But first some good news.
Today it has been reported that the unemployment rate has fallen to 8.8 percent, a one tenth of one percent drop from February. This is due to the economy adding 216,000 jobs in March, the second month in a row that jobs were added at that rate. Hopefully this number won’t be adjusted down in the coming days as is often the case with unemployment numbers. These figures are good news and come in spite of the President’s anti-business policies such as the Stimulus, Obamacare, Quantitative Easing, and the previous Congress’s neverending unemployment insurance extensions. It’s no surprise that Mitt Romney says in his USAToday opinion piece that the rate of new jobs production would be much higher (and the unemployment rate lower) by now if it were not for Obama’s policies. This is part of the common sense I was talking about earlier, and it’s a view held by a large and growing portion of the American population.
But we as Americans can (and should) do more to make the employment numbers rise in our towns and states. We can buy American-based services and products. We can buy local. It is only common sense. Do you think buying Japanese Playstations made in China will help U.S. unemployment numbers? Or would buying a Microsoft Xbox 360 be a better idea? Would buying a Toshiba laptop be a good idea? Or would buying an Apple, Dell, or HP product help more? Of course the latter would help more.
But we Americans don’t always do what is common sense when it comes to what we buy. Americans most often buy whatever is the lowest-priced product or service, generally not paying attention to (or caring) where something is made. For instance, if Moammar Gadhafi was selling gasoline at $2 a gallon in New York City right now, there’d be a line into the gas station as long as Fifth Avenue. That’s the way it is for many American consumers. Too often today there is no choice but to buy products made in China by foreign national companies. Although buying Korean cell phones and automobiles does involve employment for the people selling those goods in this country, there are not as many people employed as if the product were designed, made, and sold by an American company. In addition the tax benefits accrued by the various taxing authorities are fewer leading to lower tax revenues flowing into the various governing authorities. Not to mention greater debt and lower employment.
Is your neighbor out of work? Are you? What better way to support them than to buy American, and even better to buy LOCAL. Being from Michigan originally, I have always supported American automobile makers. Especially nowadays, the vehicles Detroit makes are stylish, and built with real quality. I had friends in the auto business, in addition to having a brother who works directly in that industry. I felt that if I ever bought a vehicle that wasn’t made in America, that I’d be doing my small part in diminishing the business that he depends on for his family’s bread and butter. It’s not much to ask of a family member or neighbor to support the company that employs them and provides a tax base to the state and local governments where you live, instead of supporting the workers and the tax base of some city, say in Germany.
If you lived in a town full of bakeries, some of them run by your relatives, would you buy bread from Denmark? If you lived in Idaho would you buy potatoes from Michigan? If you would, let me just remind you that you only have two feet that you can shoot.
Buying local, means, as much as possible, eating in your town, buying gasoline in the burg where you pay your real estate taxes, grocery shopping in your town, and buying your car and your cell phone where you live. This supports the businesses that pay taxes in your town, thereby keeping the pressure on raising your taxes lower.
It’s hard sometimes to find American-made options, but in the car market, it’s easy. Besides American automakers, there are many foreign companies that manufacture cars in the U.S. now, which is a good alternative for consumers who don’t like Detroit’s big three automakers. Honda makes many Accords, Civics and Acuras in the U.S., as does Toyota with their Camry, Hyundai’s Sonata, BMW’s Z series, Mercedes, Mazda, Mitsubishi, Nissan, and Subaru all make cars in the U.S. using American workers. These car buying options are good for those people wanting to support American jobs, and as with American automakers you have to look at them on a model-by-model basis to see if they are actually “Made in the USA”. Look at the sticker on the window for the country of origin.
Other options for American-made goods are bath towels which I found at Bed, Bath and Beyond which were luxurious and only slightly higher cost than their Chinese and Pakistani-made counterparts in the store. Oh, and buy American-made bottled water. There’s really no excuse for buying water from Fiji, or France, from an ecological standpoint or from an ideological standpoint. Same for beer and wine. There are so many super California wines that there is no excuse for buying wine from anywhere else. And small and large American breweries have a wide variety of tasty beers these days that employ American workers. Buy some American beer if you’re imbibing this weekend. You’ll feel great about it. Without going into everything that’s made in the U.S., some of the bigger items like appliances from Whirlpool, Maytag, and Kenmore are made in the U.S. as are most lawn tractors, and heavy equipment from companies like John Deere, Caterpillar, and Komatsu among others.
The more we Buy American, not because we are against other countries, but because we are for our neighbors, family members, and fellow citizens, the better the chance we’ll have of digging ourselves out of this jobless, economic funk that the U.S. currently finds itself in, despite the monetary policies of the government which continue to choke economic growth.
For more exhaustive lists of American-made products, check out these Made in the USA links:
Labels:
American-made,
automobiles,
buy local,
cars,
China,
Detroit,
economy,
employment,
government,
jobs,
Mitt Romney,
money,
Obama,
politics
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)









