The American President: What's in the job?

[Gloria]

Obama does not have a 'controlling interest' in GM.

So who does...???

[Gloria]

Speaking of General Motors:

The Treasury Department says in a new report the government expects to lose more than $25 billion on the $85 billion auto bailout. That's 15 percent higher than its previous forecast.

In a monthly report sent to Congress on Friday, the Obama administration boosted its forecast of expected losses by more than $3.3 billion to almost $25.1 billion, up from $21.7 billion in the last quarterly update.

The report may still underestimate the losses. The report covers predicted losses through May 31, when GM's stock price was $22.20 a share.

On Monday, GM stock fell $0.07, or 0.3 percent, to $20.47. At that price, the government would lose another $850 million on its GM bailout.

From The Detroit News: http://www.detroitnews.com/article/2...#ixzz23w6bNRot

Obviously a president's job does not include running an auto company.....other than into the ground.

[Skinview]

Don't ever call yourself a Patriot and encourage companies to take American jobs and put them into another country.

I do. Its in America's interest to do so. All other things being equal, its in everyone's best interest to have things made where it is cheapest.

I have no problem with foreign workers, just the guys like Romney who believe that if a company can only increase profits by lowering wages than it is their feduciary duty to move manufacturing to lower wage countries.

It is their feduciary duty. Management's job is to maximize profits. I'd fire any CEO who thought otherwise, unless he he had controlling stock. If he did, I'd sell.

Romney and his ilk are far from Patriots, they are Traitors. I'm confident that All the Founding Fathers would agree with my perspective.

I think you may be wrong. And I am sure Adam Smith didn't agree with your perspective.

"Historically, protectionism was associated with economic theories such as mercantilism (that believed that it is beneficial to maintain a positive trade balance), and import substitution. During that time, Adam Smith famously warned against the "interested sophistry" of industry, seeking to gain advantage at the cost of the consumers.[10]

Most mainstream economists agree that protectionism is harmful in that its costs outweigh the benefits and that it impedes economic growth.[11][12] Economics Nobel prize winner and trade theorist Paul Krugman once stated, "If there were an Economist's Creed, it would surely contain the affirmations 'I understand the Principle of Comparative Advantage' and 'I advocate Free Trade'."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protect..._protectionism

[Naturist Mark]

Don't ever call yourself a Patriot and encourage companies to take American jobs and put them into another country. I have no problem with foreign workers, just the guys like Romney who believe that if a company can only increase profits by lowering wages than it is their feduciary duty to move manufacturing to lower wage countries. Romney and his ilk are far from Patriots, they are Traitors. I'm confident that All the Founding Fathers would agree with my perspective.

I think you may be wrong. And I am sure Adam Smith didn't agree with your perspective.

"Historically, protectionism was associated with economic theories such as mercantilism (that believed that it is beneficial to maintain a positive trade balance), and import substitution. During that time, Adam Smith famously warned against the "interested sophistry" of industry, seeking to gain advantage at the cost of the consumers.[10]

Adam Smith was arguing against mercantilism - which is destructive economic exploitation of vassal nations for the sole benefit of an imperial power. He did indeed argue in favor of 'free trade' between nations - meaning free from the tyranny of mercantilism. However, Smith was not arguing that a preference for domestic trade was harmful - in fact he clearly stated in The Wealth of Nations that it was a good thing:

By preferring the support of domestic to that of foreign industry, he intends only his own security; and by directing that industry in such a manner as its produce may be of the greatest value, he intends only his own gain, and he is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention. Nor is it always the worse for the society that it was not part of it. By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it. I have never known much good done by those who affected to trade for the public good. It is an affectation, indeed, not very common among merchants, and very few words need be employed in dissuading them from it.

As for the founding fathers, you can't get much more explicit than Alexander Hamilton's 1791 eleven point Industrial Policy which was largely followed in the US for nearly two centuries (until the 1980s), and is now being followed by China, South Korea and the other 'Asian Tigers' to great success. Hamilton's prescription was not simply protectionism - it depended on the advantages of international trade, but it strongly supported developing domestic industry and using tariffs to do so. Today the effect of tariffs have been replaced in most countries by the Value Added Tax (VAT), which is allowed in so-called 'free trade' agreements that limit tariffs, the US is almost alone in not utilizing a VAT and also allowing its domestic economy to be cannibalized by foreign 'trade' (most of which is by foreign divisions of 'domestic' multinationals) by not using tariffs.

[BinCo]

I do. Its in America's interest to do so. All other things being equal, its in everyone's best interest to have things made where it is cheapest.

So it's American to decimate a town by moving the manufacturing plant to China while wearing an American Flag lapel pin and claiming that everyone standing in your way is UnAmerican for wanting to save American jobs, lives and towns?

All things are far from equal. That's the problem with looking at economics from a purely financial view. You ignore the human factor. I like a President who is interested in what is best for America, not just a few Americans. When you look at "Free Trade" what you are looking at is a method to bring America down to the standards of the competition, not the other way around. It becomes a matter of no longer advocating for America, but for a few Americans. That's why I said to never call someone who advocates for moving American jobs a patriot. They are not.

[Sanslines]

So it's American to decimate a town by moving the manufacturing plant to China while wearing an American Flag lapel pin and claiming that everyone standing in your way is UnAmerican for wanting to save American jobs, lives and towns?

All things are far from equal. That's the problem with looking at economics from a purely financial view. You ignore the human factor. I like a President who is interested in what is best for America, not just a few Americans. When you look at "Free Trade" what you are looking at is a method to bring America down to the standards of the competition, not the other way around. It becomes a matter of no longer advocating for America, but for a few Americans. That's why I said to never call someone who advocates for moving American jobs a patriot. They are not.

I agree with you but how do you deal with a populace that wants cheap consumer goods for the masses? People all over the world have always wanted this and never seemed to care about saving domestic jobs in any nation over those cheap goods.

[Skinview]

If you force Americans to buy domestic goods when the same imported goods are cheaper, that means that Americans can afford less stuff, which means they are POORER. So you guys think the patriotic thing is to make Americans poorer????

"Most mainstream economists agree that protectionism is harmful in that its costs outweigh the benefits and that it impedes economic growth."
-wikipedia

[Naturist Mark]

I agree with you but how do you deal with a populace that wants cheap consumer goods for the masses? People all over the world have always wanted this and never seemed to care about saving domestic jobs in any nation over those cheap goods.

The masses would rather pay a few extra cents and be able to pay than to pay a few less cents and not be able to pay ...

By the way ... according to 'capitalism 101', when you lower the cost of producing an item, the difference goes to the profit margin, not the consumer price which is determined by supply and demand. Nike shoes did not become less expensive when their manufacture was moved to Asian sweatshops. Apple iPhones are not less expensive than USA made Motorola phones. Foreign manufacture only lowers end prices when increased supply lowers demand below levels that support domestic (or local) production costs - i.e. the Walmart effect on local economies. The 'masses' ONLY benefit from lower prices due to international trade when some of them lose jobs in the process. Theoretically this can be balanced out due to the Principle of Comparative Advantage wherein we buy from foreign countries those products that they produce better, and they in turn do the same from us. But what happens when one nations gets out of the game? The US has ceded manufacturing products - we shut down 50,000 factories in the 8 years BEFORE the 2008 crash - we now export raw materials, like a third world nation. Our principle 'products' are IP (movies, video games) and Wall street 'products' - not many factories producing those.

[Skinview]

By the way ... according to 'capitalism 101', when you lower the cost of producing an item, the difference goes to the profit margin, not the consumer price which is determined by supply and demand. Nike shoes did not become less expensive when their manufacture was moved to Asian sweatshops.

Prices are driven down by competition. The first company to move its plant to China will increase its profit margin, but when its competitors do the same, they are going to lower their prices to increase sales.

[Sanslines]

The masses would rather pay a few extra cents and be able to pay than to pay a few less cents and not be able to pay......

Then why is Wal Mart such a resounding success where cheap Chinese goods are the norm? The masses do not think like what you posted above. The masses want bargains and want to buy as much as they can for as little money as possible. This is psychological and has been around since before the industrial revolution. The USA does not consist of homogenious nationalists who put country first. They are referred to as consumers first and foremost and are taught consumerism from a very early age.