The W
Views: 100784278
Main | FAQ | Search: Y! / G | Color chart | Log in for more!
23.11.07 2218
The 7 - Current Events & Politics - www.howtobuyamerican.com Register and log in to post!
Pages: 1 2 Next(1708 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
User
Post (26 total)
Guru Zim
SQL Dejection
Administrator
Level: 139

Posts: 1479/6021
EXP: 32139272
For next: 328255

Since: 9.12.01
From: Bay City, OR

Since last post: 14 days
Last activity: 10 min.
AIM:  
#1 Posted on 26.3.03 1547.22
Reposted on: 26.3.10 1547.29
"Why not line our own pockets?"

Sounds good to me.

www.howtobuyamerican.com

//edit: Of course, it looks like the site is either down, or I wrote it down wrong. The guy was just on Fox News but I can't get his site to come up.

(edited by Guru Zim on 26.3.03 1400)
Promote this thread!
MoeGates
Andouille
Level: 88

Posts: 1176/2108
EXP: 6638115
For next: 12575

Since: 6.1.02
From: Brooklyn, NY

Since last post: 33 days
Last activity: 1 day
#2 Posted on 26.3.03 1605.25
Reposted on: 26.3.10 1615.13
Is the link broken, or is it just me?

Anyway, while we're on the subject:

Click Here (buyamerican.com)

and

Click Here (unionlabel.org)

and

Click Here (ibew2000.org)

and for those of you still stuck in 1927, here's a organization not affiliated with those Un-American commie Union folks.

Click Here (bac-america.org)


Grimis
Scrapple
Level: 124

Posts: 1166/4700
EXP: 21659532
For next: 177130

Since: 11.7.02
From: MD

Since last post: 1301 days
Last activity: 1098 days
#3 Posted on 26.3.03 1832.54
Reposted on: 26.3.10 1834.09
This is where I fall away from some of my GOP brethren. Tariffs are not bad if it protects American industry and American jobs. Free trade is not free ecause trillions pour outside our borders every year. Plus, the tax situation does not encourage companies to actually keep their headquarters and manufacturing bases in America.

Let's punt NAFTA, put up some tariffs on key industry and rebuild our economy.
brick
Bockwurst
Level: 49

Posts: 127/535
EXP: 847781
For next: 36108

Since: 17.1.02
From: Pittsburgh, PA

Since last post: 571 days
Last activity: 567 days
#4 Posted on 26.3.03 1859.46
Reposted on: 26.3.10 1902.51
Thanks for the link Guru, I was surprised at some of the companies that are based in France when I saw the report, and while current politics might not change my buying habits I still try to buy Amerian whenever possible and that report was an eye opener.
Pool-Boy
Lap cheong
Level: 81

Posts: 1128/1759
EXP: 4947327
For next: 45543

Since: 1.8.02
From: Huntington Beach, CA

Since last post: 1347 days
Last activity: 113 days
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#5 Posted on 27.3.03 1242.07
Reposted on: 27.3.10 1244.49

    Originally posted by Guru Zim
    "Why not line our own pockets?"

    Sounds good to me.

    www.howtobuyamerican.com

    //edit: Of course, it looks like the site is either down, or I wrote it down wrong. The guy was just on Fox News but I can't get his site to come up.

    (edited by Guru Zim on 26.3.03 1400)



He was on the "John and Ken Show" last night and basically the publicity from Fox News brought his site down (too much traffic) ... it is still down. The guy says it will be back up ASAP...
Corajudo
Frankfurter
Level: 58

Posts: 100/810
EXP: 1529025
For next: 48530

Since: 7.11.02
From: Dallas, TX

Since last post: 138 days
Last activity: 9 days
#6 Posted on 29.3.03 1104.33
Reposted on: 29.3.10 1108.31

    Originally posted by Grimis
    Tariffs are not bad if it protects American industry and American jobs. Free trade is not free ecause trillions pour outside our borders every year. Plus, the tax situation does not encourage companies to actually keep their headquarters and manufacturing bases in America.

    Let's punt NAFTA, put up some tariffs on key industry and rebuild our economy.



TRILLIONS!?! That's a helluva lot of money. That post is also a helluva lot of grandstanding. You'll have the enumerate these 'costs' of free trade and compare them to the costs of tariffs in terms of higher consumer prices and also higher input prices to businesses. Unless you are a member of a union or a close family friend is in a union or you are in an industry in which the U.S. has a competitive disadvantage then free trade will help you out and help out the economy as a whole. If you or your family has some inherent interest in protectionism because it helps out your personal situation, then that's fine. However, even a rudimentary knowledge of economics will show the benefits of free trade outweigh the costs of free trade (and there are certainly costs).


    Originally posted by Guru Zim
    "Why not line our own pockets?"

    Sounds good to me.



This whole idea of a trade surplus increasing U.S. wealth and income whereas a trade deficit represents a net loss of U.S. income and output is based on the assumption of a gold standard (in which case a trade deficit works like a contractionary monetary policy so it does suck money out of the U.S. economy, decreasing money supply, increasing interest rates and slowing economic growth). To a large extent, this is captured in mercantilism, which was the dominant economic policy of the 16th into the 19th century. However, we have not been on a gold standard in over 30 years and our economy has evolved (not to mention our understanding of economics). Instead, by 'buying American' you are promoting inefficiency and hurting the economy in the long-run.

Pool-Boy
Lap cheong
Level: 81

Posts: 1138/1759
EXP: 4947327
For next: 45543

Since: 1.8.02
From: Huntington Beach, CA

Since last post: 1347 days
Last activity: 113 days
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#7 Posted on 29.3.03 1446.35
Reposted on: 29.3.10 1459.05
That post was the most effective case of using a limited understanding of economics and a few "big words" to make the most erroneous declaration imaginable, and sound knowegable in the process. Trade deficits/surpluses and mercantilism are still very valid descriptions of economic states- regardless of whether we are using a gold standard or not.

A Trade Suprlus is always a preferable position- when Americans are buying Domestic goods, people have more jobs and therefore more money. The fact that our currency is based on fiat rather than gold does not change this.

Importing less does not necessarily equate to Exporting less. The only benift of Importing to our economy comes from Tarrifs, and since we don't agressivly charge those on our allies, it is not really a substantial contribution to our economy.

(edited by Pool-Boy on 29.3.03 1248)
Corajudo
Frankfurter
Level: 58

Posts: 101/810
EXP: 1529025
For next: 48530

Since: 7.11.02
From: Dallas, TX

Since last post: 138 days
Last activity: 9 days
#8 Posted on 30.3.03 1050.42
Reposted on: 30.3.10 1055.43

    Originally posted by Pool-Boy
    That post was the most effective case of using a limited understanding of economics and a few "big words" to make the most erroneous declaration imaginable, and sound knowegable in the process. Trade deficits/surpluses and mercantilism are still very valid descriptions of economic states- regardless of whether we are using a gold standard or not.


Mercantilism as a valid description of a good economic policy? Interesting. Among other things, it espoused colonization and then high population growth in the homeland in order to populate colonies to make it easier to run them. It was also marked by an extremely high level of state control over key industries. Successful companies were often rewarded by the government with a monopoly in their industry. None of the liberals on this board would be suprised to hear a conservative espouse colonization, but many would be suprised to hear that you are supporting a larger role of the state in the economy. If you are interested, Adam Smith and David Ricardo did a lot of work debunking mercantilism.


    Originally posted by Pool-Boy
    A Trade Suprlus is always a preferable position- when Americans are buying Domestic goods, people have more jobs and therefore more money. The fact that our currency is based on fiat rather than gold does not change this.




This completely ignores the idea of comparative advantage. It also completely ignores the entire goal of economic policy--maximize output, not maximize wealth or the amount of 'money' we possess. Furthermore, after you pass tariffs on goods, then the domestic prices will skyrocket and lead to high inflation. So, we will certainly have more 'money' but I would argue this is not a good thing.

If, by running a trade deficit, it allows American households to purchase more goods and services and also keeps inflation under control because we pursue our comparative advantage, then we have benefitted the economy. Furthermore, if we find ourselves with a strong dollar (because the 'price' of the dollar in foreign exchange markets has risen), high economic growth (compared to other countries) and the largest economy in the world, I'm not sure how you can avoid reporting a trade deficit while following 'free market' policies. To see how trade benefits an economy, do a search on comparative advantage and see how our economic efficiency is best pursued through free trade.


    Originally posted by Pool-Boy


    Importing less does not necessarily equate to Exporting less. The only benift of Importing to our economy comes from Tarrifs, and since we don't agressivly charge those on our allies, it is not really a substantial contribution to our economy.



I agree that the ONLY benefit of tariffs is an increase in government revenue. However, you are completely ignoring the costs of the tariffs. Let's look at the steel tariff that Bush recently passed. By imposing a 30% tariff (more or less) on imported steel, we do raise some revenue for the government and we help out the big U.S. steel companies.

But, what are the costs of this tariff? Steel is a major import for many of the goods we buy. Any method of transportation is more expensive (cars, trucks, planes, etc.). Any building with steel in it becomes more expensive. Every household will feel the impact of the increased steel costs, directly or indirectly. And, it will put upward pressure on prices because the tariff is raising the cost of inputs.

So, to benefit a few steel companies that are going bankrupt anyways, Bush has raised prices to consumers and hurt our economic efficiency. However, it does make it more likely that Republicans will earn more votes in West Virginia and Pennsylvania. A great political decision but a horrid economic decision.
TheCow
Landjager
Level: 63

Posts: 411/948
EXP: 2002603
For next: 94560

Since: 3.1.02
From: Knoxville, TN

Since last post: 2481 days
Last activity: 2481 days
AIM:  
Y!:
#9 Posted on 30.3.03 1109.08
Reposted on: 30.3.10 1109.15
Just to be fair...

I don't think Pool-Boy ever said mercantilism was a "good" economic state; rather, he said it was "valid description" of a state. I find that to be like I say there's a steak on the table, but you thought I said I liked steak. Talking about the same thing, but different understanding.

Anyway, I don't think a 30% steel tariff would cause massive inflation. Yeah, domestic steel would probably increase 20% to still be "cheaper," but that wouldn't cause inflation rates to fly through the roof. The bigger thing that I'd pay attention to is this: Ultimately, our net imports (I believe we still import more than export) only run, at absolute most, $50 billion or so (and I think it's closer to $10 billion). When you realize that the GNP of our nation is several trillion, it doesn't seem to be such a big deal - at least not to me. Now, if I start seeing 1930's-era tariffs, THEN I'll worry. Not before then.
Corajudo
Frankfurter
Level: 58

Posts: 102/810
EXP: 1529025
For next: 48530

Since: 7.11.02
From: Dallas, TX

Since last post: 138 days
Last activity: 9 days
#10 Posted on 30.3.03 1323.33
Reposted on: 30.3.10 1323.44

    Originally posted by TheCow
    Just to be fair...

    I don't think Pool-Boy ever said mercantilism was a "good" economic state; rather, he said it was "valid description" of a state.

    Anyway, I don't think a 30% steel tariff would cause massive inflation. Yeah, domestic steel would probably increase 20% to still be "cheaper," but that wouldn't cause inflation rates to fly through the roof.


I never said that the steel tariff would cause massive inflation; only that it would put upward pressure on price because it would raise the cost of production for many of the goods we purchase. When I talked about the extremely high inflation, I was referring to trying to protect all U.S. industries and therefore increasing tariffs across the board in order to create a trade surplus.

As far as what Pool-Boy said/meant, I think he was defending mercantilism without really understanding what it was. But, I'll let him respond to that.
Cerebus
Scrapple
Level: 109

Posts: 654/3486
EXP: 13635732
For next: 323958

Since: 17.11.02

Since last post: 10 hours
Last activity: 12 min.
#11 Posted on 30.3.03 1512.00
Reposted on: 30.3.10 1512.42
I actually know some people who REFUSE to buy american due to the shoddy workmanship and low quality production. I won't even look at a american car to tell the truth. I'm looking to get a new vehicle thanks to my FORD TEMPO finally dying on me and my bike has too many problems to mention and there's no way I'm considering getting a american vehicle again.

That's just me though...
Stefonics
Bockwurst
Level: 52

Posts: 150/610
EXP: 1025671
For next: 58177

Since: 17.3.02
From: Queidersbach

Since last post: 2 hours
Last activity: 1 hour
#12 Posted on 30.3.03 1542.34
Reposted on: 30.3.10 1545.16
Ford Tempo? Didn't they stop mass production on those about ten years ago? I thought that car was replaced by the Countour. If that is the case, your Tempo managed to last a long time and I don't see why you wouldn't consider another American vehicle... But I could be wrong.
Whitebacon
Boudin blanc
Level: 95

Posts: 359/2472
EXP: 8424434
For next: 244204

Since: 12.1.02
From: Fresno, CA

Since last post: 6 days
Last activity: 3 min.
AIM:  
ICQ:  
#13 Posted on 30.3.03 1549.34
Reposted on: 30.3.10 1550.30
What year was this Tempo? We bought one of these new in '88/89 in Maine, drove it to Tenn. and back once or twice, lived in Tenn. for a year, Drove it out here to CA, took many a road trip in it. and got rid of it in 97 for a 96 Taurus (we now have a 2000 Taurus). That car was EXTREMELY reliable up until the last year we had it, and is probably one of the reasons we continue to buy Fords.
spf
Scrapple
Level: 133

Posts: 1772/5404
EXP: 27258104
For next: 594636

Since: 2.1.02
From: The Las Vegas of Canada

Since last post: 21 days
Last activity: 8 hours
AIM:  
#14 Posted on 30.3.03 1603.22
Reposted on: 30.3.10 1607.17
Do NOT diss the Ford Tempo. That car is a sturdy little bastard of a vehicle. The Tempo stopped in 1994, so if you have a Tempo that just died, you got at least 9 years out of it so I don't see what the complaint is.
MoeGates
Andouille
Level: 88

Posts: 1188/2108
EXP: 6638115
For next: 12575

Since: 6.1.02
From: Brooklyn, NY

Since last post: 33 days
Last activity: 1 day
#15 Posted on 31.3.03 0832.42
Reposted on: 31.3.10 0837.47
The compaint is that I've got an 1986 Honda that still runs like a charm, and I'm about par for the course for Honda owners.
Jaguar
Knackwurst
Level: 107

Posts: 1422/3273
EXP: 12819726
For next: 271627

Since: 23.1.02
From: Phoenix, AZ

Since last post: 230 days
Last activity: 31 days
#16 Posted on 31.3.03 1531.37
Reposted on: 31.3.10 1534.40
Just to add my cars to the thread:

I started with a 1984 (84!!!) Nissan Stanza in 1999. Ran great until a deer killed it dead two years later. Bought an '88 Thunderbird. It lasted 3 months before the engine blew up. What a piece of junk.

While I agree that the Ford Taurus is a great car (my dad has owned 2), they can't last half the time my Honda Accord can.

-Jag
Bizzle Izzle
Bockwurst
Level: 50

Posts: 358/561
EXP: 894664
For next: 52660

Since: 26.6.02
From: New Jersey, USA

Since last post: 114 days
Last activity: 114 days
#17 Posted on 31.3.03 1648.59
Reposted on: 31.3.10 1657.52
"I started with a 1984 (84!!!) Nissan Stanza in 1999. Ran great until a deer killed it dead two years later. Bought an '88 Thunderbird. It lasted 3 months before the engine blew up. What a piece of junk."


Let's be fair to the T-Bird. You bought it used, yet call it junk when it died 3 months after you got it? Maybe the previous owners treated it like shit. I started driving in 1989. My first vehicle was a 1970 Chevy pickup, with standard transmission on the steering column (3 on the tree!!). I gave that up for a 1974 Dodge charger in 1991 (the truck is over 30 years old and is still road worthy, if you don't mind the backfiring). that car stayed with me until the timing belt broke in 1996. I was driving 20 year old american vehicles and they ran OK. Now, back in '98-99 one of my friends had an 80's Civic that ran OK. He was drivinig and a freakin CROW flew into his door and left a HUGE dent. It looked like he was in an accident with another car. And that from a FREAKIN BIRD. Now I've got a '96 T-Bird I bought after my Dodge died and it runs GREAT. So basically I don't know about that "shoddy workmanship and low quality production". My pops has a 1924 Ford Model-T that he drives around. Let's see if your Honda's are still kickin it in another 60 years.
Jaguar
Knackwurst
Level: 107

Posts: 1424/3273
EXP: 12819726
For next: 271627

Since: 23.1.02
From: Phoenix, AZ

Since last post: 230 days
Last activity: 31 days
#18 Posted on 31.3.03 1701.14
Reposted on: 31.3.10 1705.35
Actually, it was an engine defect that I guess plagues a lot of Fords made in the 80's. I can't remember what it was, but something was made in the wrong size for the engine? Argh, now this is gonna bug me all day. Anyway, in my personal experience, Nissan's and Honda's have outlasted a Tbird that was destined to blow up, and two well taken care of Taurus's.

-Jag
The Thrill
Banger
Level: 99

Posts: 275/2781
EXP: 9952094
For next: 47941

Since: 16.4.02
From: Green Bay, WI

Since last post: 221 days
Last activity: 67 days
#19 Posted on 2.4.03 0848.55
Reposted on: 2.4.10 0850.20
I drive the last remaining '97 Tempo wagon in my TV station's fleet. Could use a little more pickup, and it's ugly and non-stylish as hell, but still quite serviceable.

Meanwhile, the rest of the boys tool around in big ol' '99 Explorers and 2002 Mercury Sable wagons...sweet rides. Grr...

(image removed)

See that one in the back? That's her.
Zeruel
Thirty Millionth Hit
Moderator
Level: 131

Posts: 1605/5229
EXP: 25945437
For next: 479253

Since: 2.1.02
From: The Silver Spring in the Land of Mary.

Since last post: 3 days
Last activity: 1 day
#20 Posted on 3.4.03 1622.22
Reposted on: 3.4.10 1624.02

    Originally posted by Cerebus
    I actually know some people who REFUSE to buy american due to the shoddy workmanship and low quality production. I won't even look at a american car to tell the truth. I'm looking to get a new vehicle thanks to my FORD TEMPO finally dying on me and my bike has too many problems to mention and there's no way I'm considering getting a american vehicle again.

    That's just me though...



i would never buy a Harley unless i was given $1,000,000.00 american...

then i'd just pocket the money and then turn around and sell the bike and buy some quality bikes like a Honda VTX1800 or ST1300ABS or a new 2004 VFR or any BMW bike...
Pages: 1 2 NextThread ahead: Iraq's U.N. Ambassador Says 'the Game Is Over'
Next thread: Who Will Be More Depressed
Previous thread: Who truly supports our troops?
(1708 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
The 7 - Current Events & Politics - www.howtobuyamerican.comRegister and log in to post!

The W™ message board - 7 year recycle

ZimBoard
©2001-2014 Brothers Zim
This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 0.226 seconds.