On Mon, 11 Oct 2004 08:40:43 -0500, "JerryMouse"
wrote:

Mike Jak wrote:
Another set of lies from repukes

KERRY: You can't stop all outsourcing, Charlie. I've
never promised that. I'm not going to, because that
would be pandering. You can't.


Which John Kerry should you believe - the John Kerry who wants to
limit outsourcing or the John Kerry who thinks that stopping
outsourcing is
pandering?

Kerry was saying that from the day one. He was not for "BAN" on
outsourcing, his position was to level the plain field.

Look at his speaches during dem caucases about a year ago...
He was saying exactly same thing.

No as far as my vote goes the choices I see:
1) retard W, who openly opposes cutting loopholes that unfairly
benefits Indians & US CEOs, where his economic adviser "claims
offshoring r&d is good for economy"

2) Guy who is saying "I can not stop all forms of offshoring, but
I'll try to
level the field".

Choice is clear.

Bush & Cheney = Retard & Crook

Outsourcing = Good. Good for you, good for me. Umm, ummm good.

Anyone who thinks otherwise is completely devoid of economic knowledge,
logic, and common sense. There are (usually) three major categories making
up productivity and an increase in the standard of living: capital, raw
materials, and labor.

No one is demanding that all aluminium be produced with domestically-mined
bauxite or that foreign investment be stopped. It is equally absurd to
require American-only labor.

First, off-shoring is a false problem. In the first quarter of this year,
the department of labor computed less than 5,000 jobs left the country.
Meanwhile the economy was creating 8,000 jobs PER DAY.

8000 per day??? I see you failed your math courses..
Latest US stats indicate nets job creation is under 3200 PER DAY.

Don't forget to subtract out, the ~550 per day foriegn workers
being imported by benedict corps on H-1x and L-1x visas.

Net result, overall job growth is FAR LESS than the ~5000 per
dayJOBS we need just to keep pace with pop growth.

--=-

As for offshoring.. You've just restated "Fallacy of Composition"..
see

"Why Offshoring is Economically Unsustainable"
http://www.itpaa.org/articles/Offshoring_Analysis.pdf


Secondly, FAR more jobs are "in-shored." Toyota has a plant in Tennessee
that makes cars solely for export to Japan! Legislation to stop
"off-shoring" invites retaliation.

Our massive trade deficit indicates that your statement is pure
BULL****!!!


Third, some off-shoring promotes the economy directly. Boeing, for example,
often allows manufacturing of sub-components in the country that buys its
jets but the majority of the manufacturing is done in the US. If not for
this provision, Boeing wouldn't sell anything at all to the affected
countries.


wrong-o... Boeing has traded for short term profits, sacrificing it's
long term future.

from the link quoted previously..

"Erecting barriers, they said, “could lead to retaliation from our
trading partners and even an all-out trade war.

This is ironic because the U.S. is already in an economic trade war
against other countries, such as China. The U.S. is under constant
attack and need not wait for “retaliation.”"


"If U.S. were even remotely “protectionist,” the U.S. would have a
trade surplus. U.S. policy is, in effect, “reverse protectionism” that
encourages companies and jobs to leave the country."

"The U.S. has essentially declared unilateral surrender, because some
economic interests maintain high profits even as most of the nation’s
population suffers and even as they sacrifice the long term future of
the nation."