Bruce in Bangkok wrote:
On Tue, 11 Mar 2008 11:27:26 -0700 (PDT), Millwright Ron
wrote:


On Mar 11, 10:06 am, "Ed Huntress" wrote:

"Bruce in Bangkok" wrote in messagenews:l8cct3tl17taro2k6k4ktev4djekouumeq@4ax .com...






On Mon, 10 Mar 2008 22:16:38 -0800, "Hawke"
wrote:

GeoLane at PTD dot NET wrote in message
om...

On Sun, 9 Mar 2008 22:07:39 -0700 (PDT), Millwright Ron
wrote:

labor is the cheapest. It comes about by lobbying for "free trade"
such as the NAFTA and CAFTA legislation.

Yay. Way to go Ron. Bring back the Smoot-Hawley tarriffs of the
1930s. We can repeat history. The financial leg of our economy is
already weakened by the mortgage mess. Lets impose punitive tariffs
and take out another leg.

RWL

The Asians impose punitive tariffs on our goods and it doesn't seem to
have
hurt them at all. In fact, they are kicking our asses. Maybe if we had
brains we'd copy them. We would say we're all for free trade but then have
protectionist policies just like Japan and China. We're not smart enough
to
do that though and will continue having our asses kicked. And we'll
complain
a lot.

Hawke

The fact is that most Asian countries import very little from the U.S.
But you are correct that there are high import duties in most asian
countries, with the exception of Singapore, where duties are so low
that it is effectively a duty free port.

The reason that they are "kicking our asses" is simply that they
manufacture goods at an attractive cost and thus "sell" more goods
then they need to "buy".

In Thailand for example, nearly all the imported goods are either raw
materials or luxury goods while they are the main manufacturer (world
wide) for Toyota and Isuzu pickups.

The real answer is that the U.S. has priced themselves out of the
world market.

There was no "world market" when prices and wages were established by market
forces in the US. What happened is that the "world market" grew up, around
pittance wages and trivial embedded costs, fueled by the free movement of
capital and the rapid transfer of technology.


Let me give you one simple example: I buy Zestril, a medicine for
hypertension, in Thailand, for the equivalent of US$ 12.90/30 tabs. I
saw it advertized on the Internet, for sale in the U.S. for $48.00/30
tabs. The same medicine, made by the same people, in the same factory.
Does that give you a hint why the U.S. is losing business?

No, it isn't relevent to the situation in manufacturing. The fact here is
that the US is the only developed or developing country in the world that
doesn't have price controls on pharmaceuticals. On the other hand, the wild
and crazy US drug market is the reason we have the researchers who have
moved here from Germany, France, and the UK, and they've lost them in big
numbers. It's the reason we have tens of thousands of jobs they would like
to have. It's the reason that I, as a medical writer and editor, made around
50% more than I made as a manufacturing writer and editor.

The current economic troubles cloud the issue, but the fact is that Germans
and French have been screaming -- even the OECD has been screaming -- that
pharma price controls in those countries have gutted their industries and
moved them mostly to the US.

That's not to say that I would support the lack of price controls here 100%.
But facts are facts. We have the numbers, and the top-paying pharma jobs.

--
Ed Huntress- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


This thread is going off at a tangent. I responded to Hawke's
statement that "In fact, they are kicking our asses", by stated that
the U.S. has priced themselves out of the world market and gave the
example of the cost of Zestril in Thailand vis-a-vis the U.S.

You respond that "it isn't relevant to the situation in
manufacturing", and then go on to explain that your salary in the
medical business was higher then in the manufacturing business.


My point is that costs in the U.S. are higher then in much of the rest
of the world and that is basic problem. It costs more to do something
in the U.S. then it does in other countries, whether it is building
something or doing something -- even answering the telephone has moved
offshore -- and as a result we have the situation that exists in the
U.S. today.

Now, this is not a simple problem and there are a host of underlying
reasons for the situation as it exists today. frankly I feel that they
are unsurmountable.

It is easy to blame it on the notion that the cause is the greedy
unions with their insatiable demands for pay increases. Or the greed
of CEO's ,which probably, is not that far out of line in reality --
Exxon, the largest company in the world? How much should we pay for
the guy that runs that company? But trying to assign blame to a single
entity, or cause, is an over simplistic point of view.

The root cause is that developed countries, simply by the nature of
the beasts, increase the standard of living of the population and the
demand for bigger, better, more, and as a result costs of doing
business in the country increases. So, as long as there are less
developed areas business will move to the cheaper, less developed
areas.

This happened, in the U.S., after WW II with industry leaving the N.E.
states (with the result of lost jobs and failing economies) and moving
to the South. It is now happening again, except industry is now moving
outside the U.S. because there is no longer undeveloped areas within
the country.






Bruce-in-Bangkok
(correct email address for reply)


Kinda makes you wonder if this "experiment in self government" is
actually working?

Richard